Volume 50 — Wisconsin Reports

Foreclosure of a mortgage. Thomas B. Scott and Wm. O. Whorton were plaintiffs, and H. W. Webster and John H. Whorton defendants. A judgment of foreclosure was affirmed by this court on appeal therefrom. See 44 Wis., 185-197.

<p>Cbiminal Law. Adultery defined.</p> <p>Under the laws of this state, a married man who has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman, thereby commits the crime of adultery.</p>

The plaintiff in error was arrested and brought before a police justice by virtue of a warrant issued on a complaint charging him with a misdemeanor. He refused to plead, and the justice entered for him a plea of not guilty. The case was then adjourned to a future day, on motion of the district attorney. The justice failed to enter in his docket the place to which it was adjourned, and the record does not show that the adjournment was for cause.

Ejectment, for a strip of land about a rod wide in block 58 in the school-section addition to the city of Hacine. Said strip lies parallel to defendant’s railway through, that block, its nearest boundary line being two rods distant from the center line of defendant’s track. The evidence introduced by the parties is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

This action was commenced in the county court of Milwaukee county, and the venue changed to the circuit court for Sheboygan county.

Ejectment, commenced in 1877, for a quarter section of land. The question of title to the same land was involved in Wilson v. Henry and others, 35 Wis., 241-9, Stephenson v. Wilson and another, 37 id., 482-96, and Wilson v. Henry and others, 40 id., 594-611, all of which were founded upon alleged trespasses to the land. The complaint in the present action is in the ordinary form in ejectment.

This action, in the nature of a quo warranto, was founded on the following complaint: “ The complaint of the above-named plaintiffs against the above-named defendant respectfully shows, that at an election held in the city of Milwaukee on the first Tuesday in April, 1878, said defendant was elected treasurer of the city of Milwaukee for the official term of two years then next ensuing, according to the provisions of the charter of said city, and that he qualified, and…

Action to recover the balance due upon a written contract, and to enforce the same as a mechanic’s lien. Held: that there was due to the plaintiffs on the contract and for extras, over and above all payments and set-offs, the sum of $2,933.55, and interest, amounting in all to $3,635;16; and that of such sum $3,610.37 was a lien upon the mill. Erom a judgment in accordance with these conclusions, the defendants appealed.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “The complaint alleges that plaintiff was the owner and in possession of a certain tract of land, on which were situated a mill and machinery, containing certain fixtures and articles thereinafter mentioned, and that on a day named the defendants, with force and arms, forcibly and unlawfully broke and entered said premises, and unlawfully and without authority took possession of said mill and machinery, fixtures and articles,…

Action for a balance alleged to be due on plaintiff’s account .against defendant for services. Defendant claimed to have paid such balance by draft sent to the plaintiff more than a year before the action was brought. The case is more fully stated in the opinion. The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatloe: “ This is an action to recover damages for a trespass upon the plaintiff’s real estate, and cutting and carrying therefrom a certain quantity of pine saw logs. The evidence shows that the trespass complained of was committed jointly by the defendants and one E. E. Comstock, and that the plaintiff had made an agreement with Comstock, as found by the jury in their special verdict, which was as follows: “ ‘ 1.

Eeplevin, against Mrs. S. H. Waggoner and her husband, who had taken the property as her agent. The case is stated in'the opinion. By direction of the court, the jury found that the plaintiff was owner and entitled to the possession of the property in suit; and that defendants unlawfully took and unjustly detained it.

Action on a policy of marine insurance upon the tug Ormsby. The defense was, that the loss was caused' by the unseaworthy condition of said tug, and by the negligent and unskilful manner in which she was handled. There was a special verdict, and judgment thereon for the plaintiff. Those parts of the verdict which are important here, are recited in the opinion. Defendant appealed from the judgment.

The defendant company contracted with one Hayes to purchase of him a quantity of logs, to be delivered in the boom of the company at Depere, and the logs were subsequently delivered there by Hayes pursuant to the contract-. Of the logs so delivered, 211,000 feet, board measure, were unlawfully cut ‘by Hayes upon lands belonging to the state.

Action on a promissory note which purported to have been signed by the defendant by making his mark. The defense was: 1. That Ooolc never made the note. 2. That if lie did affix his signature to it as maker, such signature was procured by fraud, and was made in the belief that he was signing as indorser. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, and the defendant appealed.

APPEAR from the Circuit Court for Door County. The action is on an account for goods sold and delivered by the assignors of the plaintiffs to the defendant. The answer admits the purchase of the goods at the prices charged, but avers payment therefor.

The case is thus stated by JVIr. Justice Tayloe : “By chapter 9, Laws of 1875, a court of limited civil and criminal jurisdiction was created in the county of Brown, designated £ the second county court for Brown county.’ The act provided for the election of a judge of said court, who should hold his office for the term of six years from the first day of January, 1876, It also provided that whenever a vacancy should occur in the office of the county judge then in office as…

Action to recover money paid for taxes. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment in favor of tbe defendant. The case is suf.ficiently stated in the opinion. 1.

Ejectment, for land in the borough of Port Howard in said county, described as follows: Bounded on the north by private claim No. 1, confirmed to Jacques Porlier, on the east by Fox river, on the south by vacant strip confirmed to Alexis Garda-pier, and on the west by lot No. Ill of Fort Howard reservation, containing 94.76 acres.

This action was brought to set aside a conveyance of land executed by plaintiff and her husband to the defendant.

Action on the official bond of Brauns as treasurer of the. plaintiff city from April, 1876, to April, 1877. The breach of .the bond alleged was, that Brauns had taken out of the moneys' received by him as such treasurer, $1,500 as compensation for his services during said term, being $500 in excess of the amount of his salary as duly fixed by the common council, and had refused to pay over said $500 to his successor in office.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “ This is an action to recover damages of the defendant for trespassing upon lands claimed to be owned by the plaintiff, and removing therefrom a large quantity of pine timber. The plaintiff claims title to the lands in question under a tax deed issued to him by the county of Shawano for the nonpayment of taxes assessed thereon by the town of Seneca, in said county, in the year 1872.

REPORTED from the Circuit Court for Fond du Lao County. This action, commenced in Marinette county, was removed for trial to Eond du Lac county. Held: to testify as to what defendant then stated, under oath, as to his encounter with the deceased.

' This action appears to have been commenced about February 1, 1877. Plaintiff had judgment for $114.86 damages, and for costs the amount of which is not stated in the printed case, but which included $107.84 taxed as attorneys’ fees. The case is further stated in the opinion. Defendants appealed from the judgment.

<p> (1, 2) Enjoining collection of void taxes: Failure to stay proceedings, merely error. </p> <p>(3) Appeal to S. C. Printing testimony unnecessarily.</p> <p>1. In an action to restrain the collection of taxes,, where it appears that they are void for reasons affecting their ground-work, and coming within sec. 12105, JR. S., it is error for the court to proceed to Judgment for the plaintiff without awaiting the reassessment prescribed by that section.</p> <p>2. Where the circuit court has jurisdiction of defendant’s person, such a judgment is not void for want of jurisdiction to render it. A remark in Kingsley v. Supervisors, 49 Wis., 649, withdrawn. Oetost, J., dissents.</p> <p>3. Although the printing of the testimony in this case was unnecessary in the view here taken of the appeal, this court does not regard it as such a flagrant abuse as would bring it within the rule in Southmayd v. Ins. Co., 47 Wis., 517.</p>

Action to recover the value of certain buildings belonging to the plaintiff, situated in the village of New London, contiguous to the railway tract of the defendant company, and of certain personal property of the plaintiff stored in such buildings, all of which were destroyed by fire in January, 1879.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment for the defendant. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylob: “This is an action to recover of the defendant the price of a mare which plaintiff claims he sold to him. There are no questions raised on the pleadings.

Action upon a policy of insurance. The complaint alleges: 1. The incorporation of the defendant. 2.

Plaintiff appealed from an order. The case is stated in the opinion; and the form of the'judgment therein referred to is sufficiently stated in the second proposition of the syllabus, sugira. They contended, 1.

<p>Divorce: “ Cruel and inhuman treatment."</p> <p>1. Any -wilful misconduct of the husband which endangers the health or life of the wife, exposes her to bodily hazard and intolerable hardship, and renders cohabitation unsafe, is “ cruel and inhuman treatment ” within the meaning of the statute of divorce; and even a single act of that character, where bodily harm has not only been threatened but committed, with such precedent or attendant circumstances as to satisfy the court that such acts are likely to be repeated, may warrant a decree of divorce.</p> <p>2. Upon the evidence in this case (for which see the opinion), this court affirms a judgment of divorce upon the ground of cruelty.</p>

The case is correctly stated, in part, in the brief of the counsel for the plaintiff, as follows: “ This action was brought by the German Bamk as creditor of Peter J. Leyser, deceased, pursuant to sections 3835 and 3836, E. S., to reach and subject to sale one-half of the schooner Oscar LTewhouse, now claimed by the defendant Peter T. Leyser, under a purported conveyance hy deceased, alleged to be fraudulent.

Action to recover $1,635 alleged to have been obtained by duress. Plaintiff appealed from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint sufficiently alleges duress.

Action to recover damages for the flowing of plaintiff’s land from defendants’ mill dam, and to fix the height of the dam. The complaint is in the usual form in actions under the mill-dam law, and contains the averment that the stream on which the dam is situate is not navigable. The answer contains, 1. A general denial. 2.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment for the defendant. The case is stated in the opinion. 1. The plaintiff having been compelled to pay the whole sum due on the judgment against himself and the defendant,' the latter is bound to contribute his equitable moiety. The right to enforce such contribution rests wholly upon equitable principles, and not upon any notion of implied contract between the sureties. Story’s Eq.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “ This action was commenced in a justice’s court. Plaintiff claimed in his complaint for a balance due Mm of $50 on an account for beer sold to the defendants. The account was for thirty kegs of beer sold to the defendants September 20,1873, $75. Credit by cash, July 13, 1874, $25. Balance due, $50. Interest at 7 per cent., $8.75. The defendants answered that they had paid the amount due.

<p>Highways. (1) Notice to town of injury from defective highway.</p> <p>Evidence. (2,3) Limitation of rule requiring production of written evidence. (4) What objections to evidence must be talcen specifically.</p> <p>1. Ch. 86, Laws of 1875, did not require the notice given to a town of an injury caused by a defective highway, to be signed by any person; and where such a notioe under that act was served by the injured party in person, the fact that the signature of his attorneys thereto did not describe them as such attorneys, is immaterial. '</p> <p>2. Some time after the alleged injury, plaintiff was examined by the medi- ' cal examiner of a life insurance company, on his application for insurance. Such examiner being called as a witness for defendant, it appeared that all that passed between him and plaintiff on that occasion relative to plaintiff’s physical condition, was reduced to writing and signed by the witness alone. Defendant then asked witness, 1. “Did plaintiff on that occasion have propounded to him by you this question: ‘ Has the party met with loss of limb, or had serious personal injury?' 2. ‘ Was there anything said by you or by him in that conversation as to whether he had any serious injury?’ ” Held, that it was error to reject the testimony on the ground that said writing was the best evidence.</p> <p>8. The extent of the rule which forbids the substitution of oral for written evidence, discussed per Lyon, J.</p> <p>4. The objection that questions propounded to a witness are leading, must be taken specially, or it is waived.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: !l This is an action of ejectment brought by the appellant, as administrator of Mercy Carson, deceased, to recover tbe possession of certain lands described in tbe complaint. All tbe parties to tbe action claim under tbe deceased, Mercy Carson.

Defendants appealed from an order sustaining a demurrer to a counterclaim set up in their answer. The case is stated in the opinion.

The facts of this case, as found by the circuit court, were substantially as follows: Prior to. Held: That Griffiths was seized in mortgage of the land in question; that after the conveyance from Griffiths to Lewis Williams, Sr., the latter was seized of the premises in like manner; that after the conveyance by him to the defendant, she became so seized; and that no one of the three persons named had any other title or interest in…

Plaintiffs constructed certain sidewalks in tbe city of Eacine under a written contract between them and the city; and they brought this action for $530.56, with interest at twenty-five per cent., alleged to be due them from the city. The case is more fully stated in the opinion. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appealed.

Action on two promissory notes, each for $2,517.58 and ten per cent, interest, made by the defendant to the plaintiff. Deducting indorsements, there appeared to be due on the notes by their terms about $5,500, at the date of the trial.

In January, 1879, this court reversed the judgment of the circuit court in this case so far as it awarded execution for $10,615.78 damages, and remanded the cause to the circuit court with directions to award execution in'favor of the plaintiff for $8,780.67, with interest thereon from October 3, 1877. A motion by the defendants for a rehearing was denied on the 22d of April following. 46 Wis., 35-69.

Defendants appealed from an order substituting the town of Butternut for the town of La Pointe as plaintiff in this action.

Action to recover damages for the alleged false imprisonment of the plaintiff by the defendant.

Replevin, for a stock of goods. The case is thus stated in part by Mr. Justice Taylob: u This action is brought by plaintiff as mortgagee of a stock of goods owned by his son, against the sheriff of Racine county, who had seized the goods upon an attachment against the son. The action in which the attachment issued was commenced a day or two after the mortgage was given and filed, and the attachment was issued nine or ten days thereafter.

Foreclosure of a mortgage. The defendant Ally A. TP. Crane appealed from an order sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer to her answer. The case will sufficiently appear from the opinion. 1. The mortgage was simply an accessory to the debt of J. S. Crane, and cannot exist without it. Any arrangement by which the debt is paid or discharged, satisfies the mortgage. Jaek&on v. Staehhouse, 1 Cow., 122; Cameron v. Irwin, 5 Hill, 272; Bunyan i>.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Ráeme County. These appeals were taken from two orders overruling two separate demurrers to the complaint, viz., the demurrer of Henry 8. Durand, and that of Frances Eliza Durand and ■two others.

<p>Tkovek. (1) "Proof of different title in plaintiff from that alleged. (2) Es-toppel.</p> <p>1. In an action for the unlawful taking and conversion of goods, against an officer who has taken them as property of X., where the complaint, after alleging a mortgage of the goods to plaintiff and default thereon, also alleges a delivery of them to' plaintiff by the mortgagor in satisfaction of the mortgage debt, there is ho error in; permitting plaintiff to make proof of his title simply as mortgagee.</p> <p>2. X. was a tenant of said officer’s codefendant W.; and there was evidence that W. was induced to permit X. to become such tenant, instead of plaintiff, by plaintiff’s assurance that he would let X. have the goods in question, taking back a mortgage thereof like that actually given, and that if the mortgage was not paid, plaintiff “ would go back into the place.” Held, that these facts do not estop plaintiff from denying X.’s title to the goods in this action.</p>

■ APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Racine County. Eeplevin, for four promissory notes for $300 each, made by one Bishop, dated August 20, 1877, and payable to one Vm. Sumner or order, in two, three, four and five years respectively.

This action, for damages to a lot in the city of Milwaukee (of which plaintiff is alleged to be the owner), caused by a change in the established grade of adjoining streets, was commenced in the county court of Milwaukee county, and removed for trial to the circuit court above named. The essential averments of the complaint,'including the averment of plaintiff’s ownership of the lot, were put in issue by the answer.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff by reason of an alleged defective street or sidewalk in the defendant village. The facts are briefly as follows: Walworth avenue, in said village, is a public street, extending east and west across a stream of water bordered on either side by low grounds.

Defendant appealed from an order overruling its demurrer to the complaint. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: “The complaint is intended to set forth a cause of action for negligently killing or causing the death of John Larkin, of whom the respondent is the personal representative.

The plaintiffs, as the owners of certain lots in the city of Milwaukee by deed from Joseph S. Mabbett, brought this action to remove a cloud upon their title created by a mortgage of said lots executed by said Mabbett to one Olivet W. Gunnison, to secure his bond of the same date.

The action is brought to restrain the infringement by defendant of plaintiffs’ trade-mark, and for damages. The parties are dealers in tobacco in the city of Milwaukee.

APPEALS from the County Court of Milwaukee County. The facts alleged in the complaint are substantially as follows: In 3847 plaintiff owned a large amount of stock in the Banner and Yolksfreund Printing Company, a corporation of this state doing business in Milwaukee. The defendant Jacobs also owned stock in that company, which he wished to sell to plaintiff, and which plaintiff desired to purchase or control.

' Tlie Freie Presse Compawy appealed from part of an order made in this case on motion of plaintiffs. The character of the action and the contents of .that portion of the order which was appealed from, will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

The action was brought under chapter 173, Laws of 1875, to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff, caused by the alleged negligence of a certain employee of the defendant railway company. No question is raised on the pleadings. It appears from the evidence given on the trial, that, at the time he was injured, the plaintiff was at work for the defendant as a trackman, and had been in such employment for about two years.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatloe: “This action was brought to enjoin the issuing of tax deeds upon certain tax certificates issued upon the sale of the plaintiff’s lots in the city of Milwaukee, for the non-payment of certain assessments made upon said lots for paving the street upon which they are situated.

The county court of said county having admitted to probate an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of Patrick Carroll, deceased, an appeal was taken from that order to the circuit court by Mary Carroll Clancy, a daughter and heir-at-law of the decedent.

The pleadings in this case were the complaint, the answer, a reply, and separate demurrers by different defendants to the reply as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the matters alleged in the answer. On plaintiff’s motion, the court made an order “ overruling” the demurrers as frivolous, but with leave to defendants to demur anew, on.terms. Erom this order defendants appealed.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatlob: “ This is an action of replevin. The defendant and appellant had taken possession of the property mentioned in the complaint, by virtue of a chattel mortgage given to her by the plaintiff and respondent, bearing date March 28, 1878, to secure the payment of two promissory notes for $425 each, dated November 30, 1876, one payable December 1, 1877, and the other December 1, 1878.

Replevin, for a piano and a piano stool and cover, which defendant had taken as constable on an attachment against the property of plaintiff’s father. At the time of the levy, plaintiff was an infant living at the house of her father, where the property was found; but she claimed that the property then was, and for several years had been, in her possession as her own property by gift from her brother, who, at the time of making such gift, was also an infant.

<p>Same oip Chattel. (1) False representations to vendee's agent. (2) Extent of vendor's liability for defects.</p> <p>1. Fraudulent representations of a vendor to the authorized agent of the vendee, inducing him to purchase, have the same legal effect as if made to the vendee, buying in person.</p> <p>2. On a sale of a horse, induced by the vendor’s false representations as to its soundness, he is liable for defects not apparent to the, observation and judgment of an ordinarily prudent person.</p>

-APPEAL from, the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. Action for an injury to the plaintiff’s person from defendant’s negligence. The case made by the complaint was substantially as follows: Defendant was a railroad corporation of tlie state of Michigan, operating a line of road from Ne-gaunee to Escanaba in that state.

This was an action under the statute (E. S., ch. 143) to foreclose a lien for an alleged balance due the plaintiff for materials furnished to and labor performed by him for the defendant, in the erection of a dwelling-house on certain premises described in the complaint, in the city of Milwaukee. The complaint is in the usual form of complaints in such actions, except that it fails to state specifically the date of furnishing the last item in the account.

The caséis thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR: “ This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage for the non-payment of an installment of interest.

The plaintiff appealed from a judgment of nonsuit. The case is stated in the opinion. 1.The action was not upon the note, but upou, the promise made by the defendant in his agreement with Burke and James Hanrahan. This agreement had been executed upon one side by the discharge of the mortgage, and the money ■must be paid upon the other. The plaintiffs, for whose benefit the promise was made, may maintain the action.

Replevin, for two cows, which defendant, as under-sheriff, had seized as the property of one Minkel, upon an attachment. By direction of the court, the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff; and defendant appealed from a judgment on the verdict.

The complaint alleges the death of Edward Yollner on the 24th of March, 1878, intestate, and under twenty-one years of age, leaving no widow or child, and no ancestor except this plaintiff, his mother. The due appointment and qualification of the plaintiff as administratrix of his estate, is also alleged.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylob : “This action was commenced by the appellant to recover damages for an alleged injury to his flume, dam, waste-weir and gates, situate in the city of Beaver Dam, on a certain piece of land described in the complaint, caused by the placing of certain braces, timbers, bolts and materials upon the same, by the respondent.

Action for the wrongful taking and conversion of a quantity of grain, being one-third of the grain raised in a certain year upon land which one Charles Campbell and the defendants, WilUa-m Campbell and Ftdler, owned, occupied and worked in common, each owning a one-third interest in the products. Plaintiff had purchased Charles Campbell’s interest at an execution sale.

'APPEAL from the County Court of Dodge County. After a verdict for the plaintiff in this action, defendants moved on the judge’s minutes for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and instructions; and the court made an order granting the motion, without any specification as to costs.

<p>EEEOE to the Circuit Court for Racine County.</p>

The case is stated in the opinion. Eor the plaintiff in error it was argued, inter alia, as follows: 1. The first count in the information is insufficient. It does not charge that the prisoner killed or murdered' the deceased. Even in civil actions facts must be alleged positively, and not left to inference. Rogers v. Milwaukee, 13 Wis., 610.

EEEOE to the Municipal Court of Milwaukee County. ’Whittaker, having been convicted of rape, brought the judgment here for review on writ of error. The error alleged in the instructions will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

EEPOBTED from the Circuit Court for Fond du Lao County. Tbe defendant having been convicted of murder in the first degree, the presiding judge reported the cause to this court, pursuant to the statutp, for the determination of certain qirestions of law which arose upon the trial.

Action on a policy of insurance against fire. Defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The complaint alleges that at divers times during the year ending June 30,1876, defendants wrongfully entered upon certain land belonging to one William Starr, late of the city of Eipon but now deceased, which land is described by quartér-quarter sections and alleged to be situate in a certain town and range in the county of Schoolcraft in the state of Michigan; 'that defendants “ then and there wrongfully cut upon the said land, and carried away therefrom, the trees, logs…

Replevin, for a quantity of goods. The cause was tried by the court, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, from which the defendant Smrmer Bartlett appealed. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. For the appellant there was a brief by Weisbrod db BLar-shaw, and oral argument by Mr. Weisbrod. For the respondents there was a brief by Finch ds Barber, and oral argument by Mr. Barber.

<p>Replevin: Offices. (1) Rights of receiptor against levying officer. (2) Right of officer to question bona fides of sale.</p> <p>1. In replevin against an officer who had seized, on an attachment against a third person, goods which plaintiff claimed as his own, it appeared that plaintiff gave the officer a receipt for the goods, and retained them in his hands; but defendant insisted at the trial that his seizure was valid, and that he had a right to hold the goods as property of the attachment defendant. Held, that plaintiff was not precluded by his receipt from maintaining the action.</p> <p>2. In an action against an officer who has seized goods on attachment, he may question the bona fides of a prior sale by the attachment debtor to the plaintiff.</p>

Action to recover moneys alleged to be due plaintiff from defendant as the agent of various fire insurance companies; the sum demanded being two per cent, of the amount alleged to have been received by defendant as premiums for insurance of property in the city of Oshkosh. By direction of the court the plaintiff had a verdict; and defendant appealed from a judgment rendered thereon.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatioe: “This was an action for a breach of the plaintiff’s close by the defendant.

Action by Frecl&rich Zielhe, Sr., for the unlawful takifig and conversion of goods alleged to be of the value of $3,500. Defendant took the goods as sheriff, under a writ of attachment against the property of Frederick Zielke, Jr.; and his answer alleged that the plaintiffs in the attachment suit recovered judgment for $2,486 and costs, and that the goods were not worth more than $1,762.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for Winnebago County. Action on a guardian’s bond,- commenced August 15, 1879. Loper, the principal in said bond, did not appear. Bray and McCurdy, tlie sureties on tlie bond, both appeared, but tlie former did not answer. McCurdy answered, setting up his discharge in bankruptcy on the 18th of June, 1877; and said discharge was put in evidence on the trial.

xYction on a policy of insurance against fire. After plaintiffs’ evidence was in, a nonsuit was granted on defendant’s motion; and plaintiffs appealed from the judgment. The facts shown by plaintiffs’ evidence will sufficiently appear from the opinion. 1. The agreement for other insurance .was part of the original contract, which, whether Lawson had authority to act or not, the company adopted.

Action to recover damages for an injury to plaintiffs boat, caused by obstructions alleged to have been kept and maintained in Wolf river by the defendant. In addition to the claim for damages, the complaint contains a prayer for general relief. The defendant answered, denying that it has kept or maintained the obstructions described in the complaint. By chapter 101, P. & L. Laws of 1857, a corporation was created by the name of the Wolf Eiver Boom Company.

Tbe defendant, as tbe assignee of Poles & Hull for tbe benefit of creditors, appealed from an order of tbe circuit court allowing a certain claim of tbe plaintiff against said firm. Tbe nature of tbe claim will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Action upon a promissory note. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ January 19, 1877, the defendant Crossman executed the note in suit, dated on that day, wherein he promised to pay, one month after the date thereof, to the order of the respondents, Prouty and le Fevre, at the appellant’s office in Pond du Lac, $500, with interest at ten cent, per annum until paid; and the said Prouty and Le Fevre thereupon indorsed the same, and it was then, for value…

Action for libel. The libelous matter was circulated in the form of printed band-bills, and was as follows: “ HOW XT PATS TO PATRONIZE SOME DRESSMAKERS. '££ During the month of August last, Mrs. 8.'A. Bowe, then living on Main street near Mr. Dobson’s, who bad been in tbe habit of getting milk of me at the rate of four quarts per day until it had reached fifty quarts at five cents, two dollars and fifty cents, and she finding that I had a fine'cassimere dress pattern which…

The action was originally upon a life insurance policy, brought by the plaintiff against the corporation which issued it — the Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company of Pennsylvania. That company admitted its liability on the policy, and paid the amount of the insurance into court.

.The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tavloe: “ This action was originally brought by the respondent against the £ Poyal Arcanum,’ a society incorporated by the laws of Massachusetts, to recover the sum of $3,000, which she claimed was due to her upon a benefit certificate of said society held by her husband, Walter H. Ballou, at the time of his death.

Action for an unpaid balance of the purchase price of land sold and conveyed by plaintiffs to defendant with full covenants of warranty. The answer, by way of counterclaim, first alleged entire failure of title in the plaintiffs, offered to recon-vey, and demanded á rescission of the contract; and secondly it claimed damages for breach of the, covenants of seizin and title. There was a reply in denial.

This action was commenced in January, 1875. The facts alleged in the complaint are substantially as follows: From March 14th to December 23d, 1872, inclusive, plaintiffs were copartners in the produce business at the village of Waupun in this state-; and, at different times between March 14th and May 14th of that year, they furnished defendant, at his request, sums of money amounting to $1,716.30, in consideration of which defendant agreed to deliver to them at their…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: « This is an action upon a promissory note given by the appellant to the respondent in part payment for lumber sold and delivered by the respondent to the appellant.

<p>JURISDICTION: (1) Of county court over residents of oilier counties.</p> <p>Clerk oe Court: Agency: Execution. (2) How far clerk may act as agent for attorney in filling blanks.</p> <p>1. The county court of Milwaukee county may obtain .jurisdiction in a personal action over a defendant not residing in that county, and upon process served in another county, without the voluntary appearance of the defendant.</p> <p>2. The clerk of a circuit court, to whom the transcript of a judgment rendered and docketed in another county has been sent by the party or attorney obtaining such judgment, together with an execution thereon duly signed and filled out, except the dates of the filing of such transcript and docketing of such judgment by him, and with directions to file the transcript, docket the judgment, and then fill the blanks in the execution and deliver it to the sheriff — may act as the clerk or agent of the party or attorney giving such directions, in so doing; and if he does so act, the execution will be deemed issued as of the date when it is delivered to the sheriff.</p>

Replevin, for a cow and calf. The plaintiff sold a quantity of property at public auction. The defendant bid off the cow and calf at such sale for $37. Held: on the above facts, that the title to the property passed to the defendant by such delivery, and gave judgment for a return of the property to him, or for its value in case a return could not be had. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment.

. APPEAL from the County Court of Dodge County. This action, for slander, was commenced in the circuit court for Dodge county. The words alleged in the original complaint to have been spoken by defendant, charged plaintiff with being a horse-thief.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “ The plaintiff sues to recover her wages as a school teacher. She was hired by the district board of the defendant school district to teach the school of said district for the term of sixty-six days, for which the .district agreed to pay the sum of $84; school to commence on the 23d of November, 1878.

Foreclosure of a mortgage. The defendants Oatharme Hartmann and Henry Hartmann, her husband, who were in possession of the premises under a deed from the mortgagor subsequent in date to the mortgage in suit, obtained a judgment dismissing the complaint as'to them; and from this judgment the plaintiff appealed. The case is further stated in the opinion. They contended, among other things: 1.

Action upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant company to the plaintiffs on a quantity of lumber in the city of Stevens Point. The complaint contains a prayer that the policy be reformed, and for judgment for the amount insured.

<p> Reversal of Judgment. </p> <p>A judgment is reversed upon the ground that the court erred in its finding upon the litigate'd question of fact.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: “ The following is the complaint in this action: ‘ The plaintiffs complain against defendants and allege, that on the first day of June, 1876, they were the owners and lawfully in possession of a certain dock or wharf, then lawfully being in the waters of Washington harbor, and near the shore thereof, in the town of Washington, county of Door, and state of Wisconsin, being the same dock or wharf which had in said year been then…