Volume 53 — Wisconsin Reports

The ease is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe : “ This action was brought to recover the amount of a promissory note given by the defendant to the deceased husband of the plaintiff, payable to his order, and indorsed by him in blank. The answer denies the ownership of the note'by the plaintiff. The question of ownei’ship was the only question litigated on tlie trial.

Action for a divorce. The defendant made default; the testimony was taken in open court; and on the 29th of April, 1881, the circuit judge signed judgment granting a divorce, which was duly entered of record. On the following day (which was of the same term), the judge, upon his own motion, caused an order to be entered vacating and setting aside such judgment, and continuing the cause for further hearing. Prom this order the plaintiff appealed.

Action on a promissory note dated October 3,1872, executed by S. Atwater & Co., and payable on demand. It appears that the firm of S. Atwater & Co. was dissolved in 1872, and that A. H. Barnes and Patrick Gormley, by the written agreement dissolving the partnership, assumed payment of said note and of all other demands against the firm, and became owners of the personal property of such firm.

Action to establish plaintiff’s title to certain lands, and to compel a redelivery to him of a certain deed of said lands, etc. The defendant is over eighty years of age, and is the father of the plaintiff. They were both residing upon the premises in question during the time referred to in the complaint. The son .had a family, and was keeping house, and the father was living with him. The title,of the land was in the father.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Hacine County.</p> <p>The defendant appealed from a judgment rendered against him. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

. This action was brought to oust the defendant from the office of president of the village of Whitewater, which, it is alleged, he has usurped, and is unlawfully exercising.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: ' “ This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Milwaukee county refusing to strike the cause from the calendar of that court, and change the place of trial to the circuit court of Dodge county.

This action was brought in justice’s court by Bcmdlow against Charles Thieme and his wife, Theresia Thieme; and the justice’s judgment against the defendants was taken 'by certiorari to the circuit court. Prom the judgment rendered in that court, Charles Thieme appealed. The ease is stated in the opinion.

Slander, for words charging theft. Plaintiff recovered, and defendant appealed from the judgment. The case will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Tbe plaintiff’s claim for a balance of $600 alleged to be due Mm for bis services as superintendent of School District No. 2 in Milwaukee county, having been disallowed by the county board, he appealed from that decision to the circuit court, and there had a verdict and judgment for $600. The defendant county appealed from tbe judgment. The case will appear from the opinion. 1.

Action against Adam Schoemer and wife to foreclose a mortgage executed by them to the plaintiff, on a certain lot in the city of Milwaukee, to secure the payment of a note made by the defendant Adam to the plaintiff.

The ease is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylob: “This action is brought by the administrator of John Lar-kin, deceased, to recover damages of the defendant for negligently causing the death of said deceased. The record shows that, at the time of receiving the injury which caused his death, the deceased was, and for some time previous thereto had been, in the employ of the railway company.

Replevin, for about fifty different articles of personal property described as goods and machinery. Defendants offered in evidence the judgment of a justice’s court in an action of replevin by the same plaintiff against the same defendants. On plaintiff’s objection the judgment was ruled out, on the ground that it did not determine the value of the property, but on the contrary stated that there was no evidence of such value.

This appeal was taken by the plaintiffs from a judgment dismissing their complaint as to the defendant Kate D. Hanaford, impleaded with her husband. The action was on a promissory note purporting - to be made by the defendants, for which a money judgment was prayed.

EEEOE to the Municipal Court of Milwaukee County. The case is stated in the opinion. 1. There was no legal evidence to sustain the conviction. The specific intent alleged in the information to steal the goods of John Bechtel, must be proved. Roscoe’s Or. Ev., 281; Whart. on Or. Law, § 1617; Russell on Or., 824; Stevens v. The State, 44 Ind., 469; Bex v. Jenks, 2 Leach C. C., 774; S. ■ O., 2 East P. 0., 514. See also Beg. v. Parfit, 8 0. & P., 288.

The complaint, after alleging the partnership of the plaintiffs, states that, between October 16, 1877, and April 3, 1878, at the special instance and request of the defendant Ja/mes Marhey, they sold and delivered to him certain lumber and other building materials for the erection of a building, for the agreed price of $642.85, which the said defendant agreed to pay to them, and that said sum became due and payable to plaintiffs from said defendants before the commencement…

Action on a promissory note, dated July 28, 1880, executed by Thomas O’jSTeill, Jasper Grisim and Mary H. O’Neill, and payable to the plaintiffs. The complaint alleged the execution and delivery of the note, its non-payment, and that plaintiffs were the owners and holders thereof, and asked judgment for the amount. Mary Jf.

Action by plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of James Benson, her deceased husband, to enforce specific performance of two contracts for the sale of lands. The contracts were entered into between the defendant and James Benson, a'nd, together, embrace a lot in the village of Waukesha.

The action is to recover $40, which the complaint alleges “ the defendant received from the plaintiff, as his agent, . . . to the use of the plaintiff.” Demand of payment thereof before action, and neglect of the defendant to pay the same, are also alleged. The answer, in addition to the general denial, is in substance that the, money was received by the defendant as a bailment, without compensation, and that it was stolen from him without his fault or negleet.

The plaintiff Louisa is the widow, and the plaintiff William, is the son, of Christian Kluender, who died August 15, 1871; and they claim title to certain premises here in question as widow and heir-at-law of said deceased.

Plaintiffs recovered in said court a judgment against Copeland Townsend (since deceased), and caused an execution to be issued thereon August 3, 1878. Afterwards they commenced proceedings against Biggs as garnishee of said Townsend. At the time when the garnishee’s answer was filed, Townsend also filed a notice which stated, 1. That he claimed the money, credits, etc., mentioned in the affidavit for garnishment, as exempt, for reasons specified. 2.

Action upon a policy of insurance against fire. It is alleged in the complaint that the proofs óf loss required by the policy were made by the plaintiffs and received by the defendant.

Action on a policy of insurance issued by the defendant company to one Isadore Alkan, insuring him against loss by fire or damage thereby to his distillery building, office and warehouse, and certain specified machinery therein, from June 26, 1879 (the date of the policy), to September 26, 1879, to the amount in the aggregate of $1,500.

This is a motion by respondent to dismiss the appeal for the alleged reasons, that, (1) the judgment has not been perfected by a proper taxation and insertion therein of the costs; and (2) the appeal is double.

Action by James P. Thompson against Eleanor A. Thompson., commenced in April, 1880, for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony under the 7th clause of sec. 2356, E. S. The complaint alleges, among other things, that about the 1st of July, 1874, the parties agreed to separate, and that, for more than five years next preceding the action, they had voluntarily lived entirely separate.

This action was brought against Vieh as constable, and his codefendants as sureties on his official bond, for an injury alleged to have been sustained by reason of a false return by Vieh of a summons in justice’s court in an action by J. S. Mabbett against ¿T. Y. Y. Platto. The return was, that Vieh had served the summons by reading it to the defendant therein, named personally, and giving him a copy thereof.

<p>Pleading-. (1) What is a, frivolous pleading. (2, 3) What court considers on motion to strike out demurrer as frivolous.</p> <p>Bailment. (4) Consideration for bailee's promise. (5) When bailee bound to deliver to some person other than bailor.</p> <p>1. A pleading should be held frivolous only where it is “ manifestly untenable upon a bare inspection, without argument or'research,1’ or “indicates bad faith and trifling with the administration of justice," and is “ interposed merely for delay.”</p> <p>2. On a motion to strike out as frivolous a demurrer to the complaint, the court may determine the sufficiency of the complaint as on argument of the demurrer itself.</p> <p>8. On a demurrer, nothing can be considered but the pleading demurred to.</p> <p>4. In case of a naked bailment, the bailor’s surrender of possession upon the faith of the bailee's undertaking, is a sufficient consideration.</p> <p>5. Where A.’s receipt for a package delivered to him by B. states that the package is indorsed “Property of X.,” and that it is “to be delivered to the owner,” and such receipt has been delivered to and accepted by X., and there is no evidence that B. ever countermanded the direction as to delivery, or claimed aright to do so, X., on refusal of the bailee to deliver the package to him in accordance with such direction, may maintain trover or replevin in the detinet therefor.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “ This is an appeal by the defendants from an order of the county court of Milwaukee county refusing to set aside the default and verdict in this action on their motion. The action was on a contract for goods-sold to the appellants. The answer set up both a partial defense and a counterclaim. The pleadings were verified. The cause had been placed upon the calendar of the court for trial before the 12th day of October, 1880.

Eoreclosure of a mortgage of land. On the 4th of December, 1813, Joseph Cary sold the mortgaged premises to the defendant Carl Johann Ferdinand Lehfeldt, and took back a mortgage to secure $500 of the purchase money, which mortgage contained this stipulation: “This mortgage to be a second lien on said premises, and stand after a mortgage executed this day by parties of the first part to Gustav Mueller This mortgage to Cary was not recorded.

The complaint alleges that certain lots of the plaintiff in the city of Milwaukee were sold by the city treasurer, in January, 1876, for the non-payment of the city taxes thereon for the year 1875, and of certain assessments of benefits thereon made in the same year, by the board of public works, for street improvements. The certificates of sale were issued to the city, which was the purchaser at such sale, and were after-wards assigned by the city to the defendant Nash.

Action commenced August 12, 1878, to recover a certain sum for work and labor done by the plaintiff-as an employee in defendant’s livery stable in Milwaukee, from January 1, 1866, to January, 1878, under an agreement made with the firm of J. & IT. B. Kirby. It appears that said firm was dissolved by the death of H. B. Kirby, in August, 1873.

Action for a libel in the publication of a certain article in the Eveninig Wisconsin, a daily newspaper published in Milwaukee, of which the defendants are the publishers. The substance of the article is sufficiently stated in’ the opinion'. It appears- from a statement in the printed case (but not from the complaint), that the article was signed “ Frank Smith Crocker.” The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that “ it appears on the face thereof, 1.

Action to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s person, suffered on the night of the 6th of October, 1878, and caused by his being thrown from a vehicle, while driving a liorsé attached thereto, along a street of the defendant city.

On the 2d of June, 1879, the defendant John Loew made his promissory note of that date, and delivered the same to one J. J. McClellan, by which he promised to pay to the order of said McClellan $150, and ten per cent, interest, four months after the date thereof. McClellan indorsed the note to the plaintiff, who recovered judgment for the amount thereof against the maker, John Loew, March 3, 1880.

The case is thus stated by Mr, Justice Taylor: “This is an action of replevin commenced in a justice’s court to recover the possession of a sewing machine. An appeal was taken from the judgment rendered in the justice’s court, to the county court of Milwaukee county, where the ac- ■ tion was tried, and a judgment of nonsuit rendered against the plaintiff.

This case was precisely similar in character to Singer et al. v. Townsend, ete., ante, p. 126, and the parties, except the garnishee, were the same. This appeal was also taken by the administratrix of the principal defendant, Copeland Townsend.

' From the judgment of the county court of Waukesha county, admitting to probate the will of Patrick Carroll, deceased, an appeal was taken to the circuit court of that county, where the case was retried by the court without a jury; and on the 12th of December, 1879, judgment was rendered by said circuit court, wherein it is, among other things, “ ordered, adjudged, decreed and determined that the decision of the Waukesha county court, declaring said will to be the last will…

Action, by Truman Enos, for an unlawful conversion of a spring wagon or buggy belonging to him. The answer was, in substance, that defendant as constable levied upon and sold the propei’ty to collect a delinquent highway tax, assessed against E. W. Enos, under a warrant for that purpose, and that the property in fact belonged to said E. W. Enos.

Action on a policy of insurance against fire, issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff, insuring him against loss or damage by fire to his two-story stone and brick building in Winneconne, in the sum of $2,000. It is admitted that the policy was issued May 13, 1875, for one year, and renewed May 13, 1876, for another year. It is alleged by the plaintiff that on the 13th of May, 1877, it was again renewed for one year. This is denied by the defendant.

Slander. The words alleged as slanderous charged the female plaintiff, a mai'ried woman, in effect with being a prostitute. Defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Obton: “ The secretary of state delivered to the sheriff of Winnebago county a notice that the following officers were to be elected at the next general election, viz.: presidential electors, representatives in congress in each district, a state senator in each odd-numbered district, and a member of assembly in each assembly district in the state.

APPEAL .from the Circuit Court for Winnebago County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justiee Cassoday: “ This is an action to recover for services rendered and materials furnished by the firm of Cook, Brown & Co., composed of the plaintiffs, for the-defendant, John MoGabe, in the erection and construction of a dwelling-house under a special written contract entered into between them July 11,1878.

Action against A. Haight, M. Neumann and L. Neumann on four promissory notes executed under the firm name of Neumann Bros. The complaint alleges that at the time of the making of said notes, all the defendants were partners doing business under that name. The defendant A. Haight answered by a general denial, and also filed his affidavit denying that he was a member of said firm at any time. The question raised by this affidavit was the only one litigated.

Eeplevin, for property seized by. defendant, as sheriff, by virtue of an execution issued on a judgment against Ferdinand Arndt, the plaintiff’s husband. The property consisted of grain and hay grown in 1877 on a farm which plaintiff claims as her separate estate, and to which she holds- the title.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatloe: “This action was commenced in justice’s court. In that court a jury trial was had. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant for six cents damages, upon his counterclaim set out in bis answer, and judgment was rendered for costs against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed to the county court of Winnebago county, but made no affidavit to entitle them to a new trial in that court.

Badger brought the action in the circuit court upon a,policy of insurance against fire upon a frame dwelling-house. The policy was issued April 18, 1877, and the loss occurred December 29,1877.

This appeal was taken by the plaintiffs from an order of the county court refusing to dismiss an appeal taken in the cause to that court by the defendant Haight, from a judgment in justice’s court in favor of the plaintiffs.

The present plaintiff recovered judgment against one Lull in said circuit court; and, on an appeal from that judgment to this court, the present defendants executed with Lull an undertaking, in the usual form, to secure the payment of said judgment in case it should be affirmed. The judgment was affirmed here; and this action was brought upon said under•taking.

Action for services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant as a farm hand from May 3 to July 3, 1880, at $20 per month. The complaint alleges a special contract for the work at the above price per month, but for no specified timo, and that the plaintiff left the service of the defendant by reason of sickness and inability'to work..

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: “This action was brought to recover for a breach of contract for the purchase of 300 bushels of barley, which plaintiff alleges he bought of the defendant, and which the defendant refused to deliver according to the terms of the contract.

Action for a sum alleged to be due the plaintiff for services in the sale of sewing machines, as agent of the defendant, under a written contract between the parties. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. From a judgment in favor of ‘the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.

Ejectment, for land in said county, described as commencing at the southeast corner of the W. of the S. W. J- of section 14 in township 14 north, of range 13 east, and running thence west 11|- rods; thence north 10 rods; thence east ll-J rods; and thence south 10 rods to the place of beginning, containing 115 square rods of land'. The cause was tried by the court without a jury.

Action to recover for work done, moneys paid out, etc. The cause was tried before a referee, wbo found the facts substantially as follows: The defendant, as administrator of one Lyman Barnes, deceased, having obtained license to sell certain real estate, entered into a parol agreement with the plaintiff on the 2d or 3d of April, 1874, for the sale of the lands to the latter for the sum of $2,985, the appraised value.

Some time in 1878, the plaintiffs sold to defendant’s intestate a combined reaper and binder and certain wire to be used therewith, of their own manufacture, which was delivered to the vendee about the 26th of July of that year. This action was brought to recover the contract price of the machine and wire.

This was a proceeding in garnishment in justice’s court, commenced before judgment against the principal debtor, and tried after the entry of such judgment.

Action to recover of the defendant, as guarantor, a balance due the plaintiffs on an account for goods sold by them to Ferdinand Eaas.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “ Action to recover an amount claimed to be due the plaintiff for work and labor done as a carpenter and joiner in the construction of a building for the defendant.

Action for false imprisonment. The case was before the supreme court on a former appeal, and is reported in 49 Wis., 342. A sufficient statement of the pleadings and of 'the principal facts in the case will there be found. The action was commenced in the circuit court for Fond du Lac county, and, on motion of the plaintiffs, upon the ground of the prejudice of the judge of that. court, the venue was changed to Rock county.

Eeplevin, for cattle. The defense was, that the cattle were taken up by the defendant as chief of police of the city of FTeenah, under an ordinance passed by the common council of that city May 29, 1878. Seo. 1 of this ordinance prohibited the running at large of horses or cattle upon any public street, alley, park or place within the limits of said city.

Action on a policy of insurance upon a brick building. The policy was issued October 3, 1878, insuring the property for one year; and the complaint alleges that it was renewed for one year upon the 3d of October, 1879. The property was destroyed November 18, 1879. The defense set up by the insurer, and the errors alleged to have occurred at the trial, will appear from the opinion.

The plaintiffs, the widow and children of John Eelten, deceased, brought this action to recover the S. W.’ £ of the N. W. i of section 14, town 9, range 19, in the county of Washington.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylok: “The object of this action is to enforce the application of the interest of John Schlitz in 150 shares of the capital stock of the Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company to the payment of a judgment obtained by one John Eoley, Jr., against the said John Schlitz and one Erancis Bergenthal, for the sum of §1,033.12.

Ejectment, for a quarter-quarter section of land. The complaint was in the usual form. Held: That the entry by Davidson, and certificate thereof, vested in him and his assigns an interest in said land, aud the right to a patent. 2. That the attempted cancellation of such entry, founded on mistake, was void, and such interest was not thereby divested, and the Puffer entry and patent conveyed no valid title. 3.

Replevin, for seven horses of the plaintiff, which, the complaint alleges, were unlawfully detained from his possession by the defendant. The answer is a general denial. The case is stated in the opinion.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “Action for the unlawful taking and conversion of personal property.

' Action for the conversion of certain “ goods, chattels and promissory notes,” alleged to belong to the estate of plaintiff’s intestate. The case will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Action, against a county and its treasurer and deputy treasurer, to set aside a reassessment of certain lands made in 1879, and the imposition upon said lands in that year of payment of taxes for the years 1873-1877, inclusive, and to restrain the collection of such taxes.

On the 25th of November, 1878, the board of supervisors of Fond du Lac county adopted a resolution fixing the board of prisoners in the county jail of said county after December 1 of that year, at three dollars per -week for each prisoner while so confined. In November, 1880, plaintiff, as sheriff of said county, presented to said board of supervisors a claim for the board of said prisoners at the rate of $3.50 per week.

The complaint contains two counts. Defendant demurred to the whole thereof, on the ground that two causes of action are improperly united, and to each count on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: “ This is an action for verbal slander. The complaint alleges that the defendant falsely and maliciously, in the presence and hearing of divers good and worthy citizens, spoke and published of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning his business, the following false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory words, viz.: ‘ There is foreign substance in your milk, similar to water, and it is water.

Ejectment, brought against Sarah C. Kellogg, Edwin C. Kellogg and others. The answers of Sarah C. and Edwvn C. Kellogg are sufficiently stated in the opinion. There was a reply in denial of the equitable counterclaim set up by Edwin C. Kellogg.

The defendants were agents of the plaintiff, under a written contract, for the sale of certain machines in the territory named, and were to receive for their commission and in full payment all over certain specified priees; and they agreed to turn over to the plaintiff the balance of the notes and cash received for such machines, at the end of the season.

Action to foreclose two tax certificates. The complaint alleges no facts anterior to the tax sales to which the certificates relate. The objections taken at the trial will sufficiently appear from the opinion. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appealed. He contended, 1. That, in the absence of any statute making the certificate of sale evidence of the prior tax proceedings, all these proceedings must be pleaded and proven.

<p>APPEAL from Municipal Court of the City of Ripon.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Action upon a promissory note executed by the defendant, Henry, July 20, 1880, wherein he promised to pay, three months thereafter, to the order of Eobert George, the plaintiffs’ testator, $5,000, with interest at eight per cent.

■APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Crawford County. .The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “This action was commenced originally for the purpose of recovering three times the excess of money paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant over and above the legal rates fixed by chapter 273, Laws of 1874, known as the Potter law, for the transportation of a large quantity of wheat from Muscoda to the city of Milwaukee, in this state.

C. David to recover the value of certain goods and merchandise taken by the defendant, as sheriff of Grant county, under certain writs of attachment issued out of the circuit court for said county. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; a new trial was refused; and defendant appealed from a judgment in accordance with the verdict.

Replevin, for a quantity of wheat and oats. The answer was, that the defendant took the grain under a valid execution against Edward Fisher, and that said Edward Fisher was the owner of the property. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment; a new trial was refused; and defendant appealed from the judgment.

APPEAL fo’om the Circuit Court for Crawford' County. Replevin, for cord wood. The case is stated in the opinion. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of nonsuit.

The action is by one of the heirs of Joseph Eenley against his widow’and other heirs, for partition of certain real estate of which he died seized, and which he did not dispose of by will.

In the year 1871, the plaintiff company leased a short line of railway in this state of another company for .twenty years, and has ever since operated the same. In 1880 the plaintiff purchased three short lines of railway of other companies by which the same were built, and has ever since owned and operated such lines. The gross earnings of each of these lines of railroad for the year 1880 were less than $3,000 per mile, and of one of them less than $1,500 per mile.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylob: “ On the 13th of May, 1869, an order was made by the county court of Richland county declaring John Robbins the adopted child of the plaintiffs, Harrison Hole and his wife, Lydia Ann Hole. It is admitted, for the purposes of this trial, that such adoption was in all respects in accordance with the provisions of chapter 49, R. S. 1858, as amended by chapter 136, Laws of 1865, and chapter 140, Laws of 1858 (1 Tay.

The defendants appealed from an order overruling their demurrer to the complaint. The pleadings will sufficiently appear from the opinion. /

This is an action by husband and wife to recover damages for personal injury to the wife, alleged to have been caused by a defect in a sidewalk in an unincorporated village of the defendant town. The answer was a general denial, except as to certain formal parts of the complaint. -On the trial the defendant’s objection to any evidence under the complaint was sustained by tbe court, and judgment was thereupon rendered against the plaintiffs, from which they appealed.

. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the plaintiffs are executors of one Polly Goodrich, deceased; that in June, 1867, the… Held: in effect, that the complaint stated a cause of action, and having found, after the trial, that all the allegations of the complaint were true, could not rightfully hold that the complaint did not state a cause of action. That question was then res adyudicdta. Corwith v. State Bank, 11 Wis., 430; Gale v. Best, 20 id., 44; Cothrenv.

Action against J. T. Iloile and J. A. Bratt for the price of goods sold and delivered by-the plaintiff to them as partners. The defense relied upon by Iloile, and the facts proven and found, will sufficiently appear from the opinion. From a judgment against both defendants, Iloile appealed.

APPEikL from the Circuit Court for Portage County. The complaint alleges, in effect, that the plaintiff agreed to manufacture for the firm of the defendants, at their mill, three grades of shingles at agreed prices, and a fourth grade for what it was reasonably worth, and it was reasonably worth sixty cents per thousand; that, in pursuance of said agreements, the plaintiff did manufacture of each of the different grades the several amounts stated; and that the defendants had…

Action to enforce a laborer’s lien upon shingles. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. Prom a judgment in favor of the defendant Miden, the plaintiff appealed. Tie contended, inter alia, that, as between these parties, McCormick must be regarded as having been Eiden’s agent for the manufacture of the shingles, within the meaning of sec. 3341, R. S. Paine v. Gill, 13 Wis., 561; Pattis v. Hamlin, 22 id., 669; Bablca v. Eldred, 47 id., 189.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Portage County.</p> <p>The defendant town appealed from a judgment rendered against it. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “ This is an action of trespass, for the wrongful taking and ' conversion of personal property. The defendants alleged that the property in question was the property of Chamberlin and Schenck, and that they had seized the same upon, an attachment issued in favor- of the defendants C. Aultman db Co., a- corporation of that name, and against the said Chamberlin and S che nek.

The defendants appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, on grounds which will sufficiently appear from the opinion.-

The defendants appealed from a judgment establishing a vendor’s lien in favor of the plaintiff, James Carey, upon forty acres of land owned and occupied as a homestead by the defendants. The case is stated in the opinion. 1. Uo vendor’s lien was established.

The complaint alleges, among other things, the execution and delivery to the plaintiff, by the Roger Williams Insurance ' Company of Providence, R. I., of a policy of insurance against fire, and various renewals of the same continuing it in force to March 1, 1880; that it was provided in said policy that, in case of loss or damage by fire, the insured should forthwith give notice thereof to the company, and, as soon thereafter as possible, render a particular account of such…

This action was founded upon the following instrument: “$96.85. Menominee, 'Wisconsin, March 15, 1880. “ On the first day of September, 1880, the subscribers, whose post-office address is Menominee, county of Dunn and state of Wisconsin, promise to pay E. *M. Birdsall & Co., or order, $96.85, for value received, with interest at ten per cent, per annum if paid when due; if not so paid, then the interest shall be ten per cent, per annum from date.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: “A petition was presented by one Henry Linley to the county court of Dane county, under section 3976, E. S. The following is a copy of the petition, after the title of the proceeding: “ ‘ To saicl Court: The petition of Henry Linley, of Arena, Iowa county, Wisconsin, shows to this court that he is a neighbor and long-time friend of John Royston, of Mazoma-nie, in said county; that said Royston is now eighty-seven years of age,…

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Bane County.</p> <p>Replevin, brought .by Jones as guardian of John Royston. Defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ Action to recover damages for an injury resulting in the loss of a foot of the plaintiff, Rosa Townley, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, March 10, 1879.

Replevin. The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment in favor of the defendants. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The circumstances out of which this action arose, are briefly as follows: In 1879 the firm of Connolly & Matzek, of which the plaintiff was a member, were retail dealers in hats, etc., in the city of Milwaukee, and were indebted for merchandise to the defendants, constituting the firm of Straw, Ellsworth & Erandt, of that city.

The plaintiff’s mare, while traveling upon a highway in the defendant town, stepped one or both of' her hind feet through a hole in a culvert in such highway, by reason of which it .is alleged that the mare received a severe inj ury from which she died several weeks thereafter. This action is to recover damages for the loss of the mare and her services, and the trouble and expense of taking care of and trying to cure her after the injury.

Action for injuries received by the plaintiff while being transported on a band-car on defendant’s road, and alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant’s servants. The essential averments of tbe complaint will appear from the opinion. Tbe defendant appealed from an order overruling its general demurrer to tbe complaint.,

The plaintiff was in the service of the defendant company, working, with many others, in a. gravel-pit a short distance from Baraboo. His business was to shovel gravel and earth upon cars which were backed into the pit. He was so employed about three months in the summer and fall of 1879. In October or November of that year, while he was so at work, a bank of earth under which he was excavating fell upon him and seriously injured him.

The case is stated in the opinion. The circuit court directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $9,172.22; and from a judgment on such verdict the defendant appealed. 1. The appellant should have been pei’mitted to show, under the general denial, that he was authorized by the respondent to retain the moneys in question for certain demands growing out of his agency.

EEEOE to tbe Circuit Court for Taylor County. The plaintiffs in error were convicted upon an information charging them with having wilfully and maliciously resisted a constable while engaged in' the lawful execution of a legal criminal warrant.

Action for injuries received by plaintiff's cattle while straying upon defendant’s track, and alleged to have been caused by defendant’s neglect to erect fences and keep the same in repair between the plaintiff’s land and said track. The facts established by the evidence as understood by this court, and the exceptions taken to the rulings' of the court below, will sufficiently appear from the opinion.