Volume 54 — Iowa Reports

Action to recover tbe purchase price of a “ Massilon Harvester” sold and delivered by tbe plaintiff to tbe defendant. Trial by tbe court, a finding of facts and judgment for tbe plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

<p>1. Mortgage: consideration: priority of liens: mistake in description. An agreement by a creditor to extend tbe time for payment of his debt, and also to purchase a certain mortgage executed by tbe debtor, was held to constitute.a sufficient consideration to support a second mortgage to him, and to entitle both mortgages in his hands to priority over another and prior mortgage given by the debtor for the purchase money of the property, but which by mistake did not contain a correct description of the land, and of which the holder of the two subsequent mortgages had neither actual nor constructive notice.</p>

This action was brought against the defendant as county auditor of Jones county, to recover damages in the sum of $50.79, alleged to have been sustained by the refusal of the defendant to pay plaintiff certain money due plaintiff as money paid in redeeming land from tax sales. ' Judgment was rendered in the plaintiff’s favor for $57.00 damages, and $49.00 costs. The defendant appeals.

<p>1. Pleading: action in representative capacity: denial. In an action by a receiver a mere denial that he has properly qualified as such is not sufficient to put such fact in issue, but the facts relied upon should be specifically pleaded.</p> <p>2. Kes Adjudicata: mortgage: receiver. Where a receiver of the mortgaged property was appointed in an action of foreclosure, upon an allegation that the property was inadequate to pay the mortgage debt, it was held that such question was adjudicated in that action and could not be again raised in an action by the receiver to collect rents.</p> <p>3. ——: -: -•. The decree in such action would also constitute an adjudication upon the right of the plaintiff to the appointment of a receiver and to receive the rents and profits of the property.</p>

Action in chancery to enforce a vendor’s lien. A decree was entered in the court below granting the relief prayed for in plaintiff’s petition; defendants appeal. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

This is an equitable action and involves the title to 80 acres of land. The plaintiff’s claim of title is derived from certain tax-sale deeds which, were executed by the treasurer of Howard county to one Lawson, on the 17th day of October, 1874. The defendants claim under the patent title. There was a trial by the court upon written evidence and a decree was entered dismissing the petition. Plaintiff appeals.

Tiie defendant, as treasurer of Clinton county, was, at the time of the commencement of this action, proceeding to sell for a special assessment, made for the improvement of a street, a certain lot in the city of Clinton belonging to the plaintiff.

An ajiplication was j>resented to tlie Clinton District Court representing that a dispute had arisen among the proprietors of certain lands as to the corner and honndaries between sections 16 and 17 and 20 and 21, in township 83 north, range 3 east, and asking for the appointment of a commission of one or more surveyors to make survey of and permanently establish said corner and boundaries, as provided by law.

This is an action in equity upon promissory notes, amounting to six hundred and thirty dollars, and to foreclose a mortgage executed to secure them upon one Chicago Pitts No. 2 Senior Separator. The defendant alleges that the notes were given for the purchase price of the thresher, and that they are without consideration, because of the breach of the written warranty under which the machine was sold. The defendant also claims damages in the sum of $470.

I This case was before us on a former appeal. See 46 Iowa, 495, to wbicb reference is made for a statement, in part, of tlie facts! ^“Upon tliat appeal it ivas held that the plaintiff should be regarded simply as a mortgagee in possession, and liable to account, and tlie cause was remanded for the talcing of an account and the foreclosure of the mortgage originally sued upon, if anything should appear to be due thereon.

<p>1; Promissory Note: ownership op: wrongful conversion. Where a promissory note placed in the hands of an agent for collection after maturity was converted by him to his own use, and afterward sold under an execution against him, it was held that the purchaser acquired no interest in the note which would enable him, or any one claiming through him, to maintain an action thereon against the maker or a guarantor.</p>

Action to set aside three tax deeds. Tlie first deed recites that the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 5, township 99, range 14, was exposed to public sale for taxes for the year 1872, and M. B. Doolittle having offered to pay the taxes for fourteen acres of the land, the same was struck off to him, and that three years having elapsed from the date of sale the treasurer conveyed the said premises to said Doolittle.

<p> Appeal from Oerro Gordo Oi/remt Gov/rt. </p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

It is averred in the petition that in the year 1877 the assessor of Jefferson township, Eayette county, assessed to the plaintiff the sum of §9,300, as moneys and credits; that said assessment was made unlawfully and maliciously, and without plaintiff’s knowledge; that at the time said assessment was made, and for several years prior thereto, the plaintiff was a resident of the county of Bremer, and was not absent therefrom except on business; that all of plaintiff’s…

Action at law to recover the value of certain buildings destroyed by fire, upon the ground that defendant was bound by contract with the city of Clinton to supply water to be used in extinguishing fires and failed to perform its obligation in this respect, which resulted in the destruction of plaintiff’s property. A demurrer to the petition was overruled, and defendant appeals from the decision upon the demurrer.

<p> Appeal from Delaware Gi/rcmt Oowrt. </p> <p>Action to foreclose a mortgage. There was a decree for plaintiff. The defendants appeal.</p>

On the 6th day of August, 1874, George M. Carson executed to the defendant Plato a mortgage upon certain premises in controversy to secure the sum of $1,000, with interest at ten per cent. In October, 1876, judgment was rendered in favor of Plato against Oarson for $1,106.38, and costs, and an attorney’s foe, and for a foreclosure of the mortgage. The property was sold on special execution, and Plato became the purchaser for $1,246.60.

This is an action to recover damages for tlie alleged wrongfully and maliciously suing out an attachment against tlie plaintiff. The defendants procured an attachment against the plaintiff upon tlie ground that lie had disposed of his property in whole or in part with intent to defraud his creditors. The attachment was levied upon the entire stock of goods of the plaintiff, and his place of business was closed.

Appeal .from Bremer Qireidt Court. The plaintiff filed in said court the following claim: “ Claim of Bremer county, Iowa, against S. II. Ourtis, the admistrator of the estate of Julia Oresmeyer, deceased: Date.

The defendants N. B. Brown and William Harper, having certain differences, selected O. C. T. Jones, the plaintiff herein, one U. S. Taylor and JT. H. Camburn as arbitrators, to settle said differences, make an award and report the same for judgment thereon, to the Linn District Court.

These three cases were submitted together. They involve simply the question of the right of subcontractors to a lien upon a court-house erected for Story county by J. B. Eandall. The court rendered judgment in favor of each of the plaintiffs against the defendants J. B. Eandall and Story county, and established the respective liens as prayed against the court-house. Story county appeals.

Action for slander. The alleged defamatory words are as follows: “The old woman (meaning thereby this plaintiff) stole goods ont of the stock upon which I had a mortgage, and cheated me ont of several hundred dollars. They (meaning plaintiff and her husband) must have taken some goods away.

<p> Appeal from Webster Ovreuit Gourt. </p> <p>• The plaintiff brought an action against John E. Gustafson, aided by attachment, and the Eirst National Bank of Boone was garnished as a supposed debtor of John E. Gustafson. The statutory questions were propounded to the garnishee -through its cashier, who answered all of said questions in the negative. The plaintiff recovered judgment against Gustafson fo,r $625.21, with ten per cent interest, and an order was made giving the plaintiff leave to file, within ten days, a bill in equity against the said bank. Within the time allowed the plaintiff filed a petition in equity alleging in substance that of the proceeds of a certain mortgage on cattle to plaintiff to secure the debt sued upon, the defendant bank received from Gustafson one thousand dollars, and applied it to the satisfaction of an antecedent indebtedness due the bank from Gustafson. The petition prays that the bank may be declared a trustee of said fund, and required to account for tbe same.</p> <p>Tbe court dismissed tbe petition. The plaintiff appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

This action was commenced in 1876, to quiet the title to about 10,000 acres of land in Humboldt and Pocahontas counties.

It is averred in the petition that the defendants are a co-partnership, and that the plaintiffs “ sold and delivered to defendants goods, wares, and merchandise of the agreed price, and of the aggregate value, of $283.88, no part of which has been paid, and the same is now due plaintiff from defendant, with six per cent interest.” The defendants demurred to the petition upon the ground that the legal capacity of the plaintiff to sue “ was not evidenced by any allegation that…

Action commenced before a justice of the peace. The petition stated the plaintiff sold to the defendant two plow's on condition they were to be returned if they failed to do good work. That defendant willfully, or through gross carelessness, broke and injured said plows, whereby the plaintiff was damaged. The defendant pleaded a former adjudication. The cause was appealed, to the Circuit Court and there tried on the issue aforesaid to a jury.

Action upon a complaint made by one Reka Helm against tbe defendant, charging that slie lias been delivered of a bastard child, which is living, and that the defendant is the father of it. Upon the trial the State offered to exhibit the child to the jury for the purpose of showing a resemblance between the child and the defendant. To such offer the defendant objected, but the objection was overruled, and the child exhibited.

What .was claimed to be the will of Wm. Emery was filed iu the Circuit Court, and proponents asked that it be admitted to probate. The contestants filed objections thereto. There was a trial by jury, verdict for the proponents, upon which judgment was rendered, and the contestants appeal.

Separate indictments for larceny were found against the defendants in the above entitled cases, but by the same grand jury. Having been convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary, they appeal.

On tire 10th day of December, 1877, one Dilla P. Kirkland commenced an action before a justice of the peace against one J. O. Morrison, claiming of him the sum of one hundred dollars, with interest thereon from January 12th, 1877. On the 18th day of December, 1877, judgment was entered in said action against Morrison for the sum of $99.99, and costs and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff held a promissory note, which was executed by tbe defendant J. R. Covey, and which drew interest at tbe rate of ten per cent. Tbe note was secured by mortgage upon certain real estate, which was executed by both of tbe defendants. An action was commenced for judgment on the note, and a decree foreclosing the mortgage. A reasonable attorney’s fee was also demanded, which was provided for in the note.

Action for an injunction to prevent the defendant from removing certain school-houses, and from assuming the control of certain territory.

<p>1. Adverse Possession.: intention: statute oe limitations. Where the owner of one of two adjoining tracts of land, without an intention of claiming or occupying beyond the boundaries of such tract, encloses with it a portion of the other, the possession so held is not adverse to the true owner, and although held for more than ten years will not support a plea of the statute of limitations to an action by such owner.</p>

Action upon a contract set out in the opinion. Upon motion of plaintiff, the cause was transferred to the equity docket. A judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

This is an original action in this court, tbe object of which is to compel the defendant, who is judge of the Circuit Court, to make a certain order in an action lately pending in said court.

Action to recover damages caused by the alleged negligent construction of a ditch in a street of the town. There was a trial by jury; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

This action is brought upon a contract in the following form: “ §200.

Ajy^eal from Black Hawk Gwowit Court. ■ Action at law to recover of defendants the amount of a judgment in favor of plaintiff against the Patrons Joint Stock Company, an incorporation existing under the laws of this State. The ground upon which recovery is sought against defendants is fraud on their part as officers of the incorporation in managing its affairs. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and, upon facts found judgment was rendered for defendants.

Floyd CvrouAt Court. This action was brought in the Floyd Circuit Court to recover damages for the alleged publication of a libel in Floyd county. The defendant is a resident of Butler county. He appeared to tlie action and moved the court for an order changing the place of trial to Butler county. The court sustained the motion and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for twenty-five dollars, attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiffs are physicians and surgeons practicing théir profession in partnership. C. C. Bradley, one of said partners, was called by a justice of the peace, who was acting as coroner, to assist in making a post mortem examination upon the body of one Stronski. This action was brought to recover the sum of fifty dollars for said services. There was an answer in general denial, and a trial by the court. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed.

Appeal from FrankT/im District Gov/rt. Indictment for maliciously killing a horse, the property of W. H. Hoxie. From the judgment the defendants appeal.

These cases are submitted upon one abstract. They are actions in equity to recover possession, and quiet the title of several tracts of laud situated in Montgomery county. There were decrees rendered in each case in the court below lor plaintiff. Defendants appeal. The facts of the cases appear in, the opinion.

Action upon a surrendered promissory note, signed by all the defendants as joint makers. The defendants S. M. and W. F. Miller were in fact merely sureties. At the time of the maturity of the note the principal, Landis, paid a part and applied for an extension on the balance. The extension was granted on condition that Landis would give a new note signed by the same persons.

The plaintiff and defendant were married in the State of New York, in the year 1870. On the 31st of January,..1878, they were divorced by the decree of the District Court of Dubuque county, in this State. The decree was upon plaintiff’s petition, which charged the defendant with willful desertion. The defendant was then, and is now, a resident of the State of New York. Service of the original notice was made by publication, and the defendant made no appearance.

This action is brought upon a promissory note for $550, upon which is indorsed a payment of $50. The defense pleaded is a want of consideration. There was a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $610, and $35 attorney^ fee. The defendant appeals.

Action to recover the value of a horse. The plaintiff avers that he entered into a contract with the defendant whereby in consideration of certain notes made by one Tucker, which were to be indorsed by defendant to plaintiff, he agreed to sell and deliver to defendant two horses and nine and one-half tons of hay; that he delivered one horse and received the notes with the understanding that the same were to be indorsed by defendant, but that the defendant refuses to indorse…

<p>1. Contract: construction: mortgage. Upon the last day for redemption of property sold under execution, the holder of the sheriff’s certificate and the owner of the right of redemption entered into a written agreement by which the former agreed to loan to the latter a further sum, taking his note therefor, and to extend the time for redemption, the property standing meantime as security for the whole amount of indebtedness, which was to be paid, with interest, at the expiration of one year, in redemption of the property — in default of such payment the agreement to be void as against the owner of the certificate: Held, that such contract constituted a mortgage, and entitled the mortgagor to a year from the time of its foreclosure in which to redeem.</p> <p>2. Mortgage: repairs: taxes. The cost of repairs made upon the mortgaged property by a mortgagee cannot be added to the mortgage debt.' Whether taxes paid by the mortgagee upon the property, in the absence of agreement, can be tacked to the mortgage debt, quaere.</p>

This is a proceeding for the revocation of the defendant’s license to practice as an attorney. He pleaded guilty to certain charges and specifications. Upon this plea the court suspended the defendant from the practice of his profession for the period of two years from November 15,1879, giving him the privilege of moving for a modification within six months from November 15, 1879, upon showing that the claim against him has been paid.

<p>1. Highway: dedication and prescription. Highways may be established in this state by dedication and prescription, and such are not rendered illegal by sections 957 and 967 of the Code.</p> <p>2. -: -: use. Section 2031 of the Code does not apply in case of a highway which had been used as such by the public for more than ten years prior to the enactment of the Code.</p> <p>3.-:-: instructions. Instructions as to the evidence necessary to establish the existence of a highway by dedication and prescription, and the weight to be given certain facts, considered and approved.</p>

The petition alleges that The Second Baptist Church of Dubuque, a corporation duly organized and doing business though a board of trustees, did, through its duly authorized board of trustees, execute to plaintiff a promissory note for $2,500, dated May 6th, 1876, due on or before four years from January 1st, 1876.

Action to quiet title to eighty acres of land. The plaintiffs claim to own the same by virtue of a tax deed dated January 25, 1869, and filed for record the same day. The deed purports to have been acknowledged before Samuel Tennis, clerk of the board of supervisors.

The plaintiff brings this action for tbe enforcement of tbe specific performance of a contract entered into by letter for tbe conveyance of two hundred acres of land. Tbe cause was referred to W. A. Iloyt Esq. Upon tbe filing of tbe referee’s report a decree was entered for tbe plaintiff as prayed. Tbe defendant appeals.

The defendant was indicted for an assault with intent to murder one Anna Rickel. Upon a trial he was convicted of the crime charged in the indictment, and he appeals.

Action to recover the “ immediate possession of nine acres, more or less * * * of wheat cut and now standing in shock on said premises.” The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the possession of the wheat under and by virtue of a chattel mortgage, and the defendant claimed the property under a purchase at an-execution sale. There was a trial by the court on a stipulation as to, the facts, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

Oireuit Oov/rt. The facts in the above two cases are identical, and they are submitted upon the same abstract. Each of the above named plaintiff's brought an action to restrain by injunction the collection of a five per cent tax, levied upon the property of the plaintiffs respectively, voted in Newton township, Jasper county, in aid of the Iowa, Minnesota, and North Pacific Railroad Company.

Appeal from Fayette District Court. Action at law. Trial to the court; judgment for the plaintiff, and the intervenors appeal.

The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of A. Cimbra, deceased, avers that the defendant has wrongfully taken possession of and converted the property of the estate to the amount of $500, and he asks judgment against the defendant for that amount. The defendant denies all wrongful interference with the estate. Judgment was rendered for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Action to establish and enforce a mechanic’s lien against a railroad. The plaintiff shows in his petition that under a contract with the defendant Hinckley he furnished railroad ties to the amount of over three thousand dollars for the construction of the road of the defendant, the Chicago, Clinton & Western E. Co.; that afterwards; to-wit, September 4, 1875, plaintiff filed his statement and took the necessary steps to secure a lien upon the road.

. Action in chancery to enjoin defendants from the use of a trade mark. Upon the final hearing, a decree was entered granting the relief sought in plaintiff’s petition. Defendants appeal. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

Action upon a negotiable promissory note executed by the defendant for $195, made payable to the order of P. Hobler, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff for value before maturity. The defendant sets up for defense that he was induced to execute the note by fraud.

The plaintiff, on the 30th day of October, 1879, filed in the court below a claim, duly verified, of which the following is a copy: “Joseph Dubois, executor of the last will and testament of P. F. Seigneur, deceased, and executor of the estate of said deceased, in account with Yictor Dubois, debtor, June 18, 1877: To commissions for sale of land for $4,000, at five per cent, as per agreement with said P. F. Seigneur, said agreement and sale having been made during the…

This action, while docketed as above, appears to have been brought by Henderson to foreclose a mortgage against Jane Foster and John Foster. Service of notice was made by publication, the last publication being on the 21st day of February, 1878. No petition was filed until the day after publication was completed. Judgment was taken by default, and a decree entered.

The petition in this case contains two counts, or causes of action. In the first, the plaintiff demands $400 upon a contract of employment as a private detective.

On the 10th day of May, 1873, there was filed in the office of the clerk of the Winneshiek Circuit Court a written confession of judgment in favor of the defendant herein, signed by John Lawrence and Alexander Lawrence, by which they authorized the clerk of said court to enter a judgment against them for the sum of $700.

Action to recover damages for alleged fraudulent representations made by the defendant, by means of which the plaintiff was induced to purchase about two acres of land at Olin, Jones county, upon which to erect a dwelling house.

<p> Appeal from Johnson Cvreuit Court. </p> <p>Action upon account. Trial by jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.</p>

Aypjpeal from Winneshiek District Oourt. Action in chancery to quiet the title to certain land described in the petition. There was a decree granting the relief prayed for by plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Action in equity to restrain the sale of certain real estate under an execution issued on a judgment against N. F. Scallon. The relief asked was granted, and defendants appeal.

Action to foreclose a mortgage. A portion of the defendants named filed a petition for a removal of the case to the. Circuit Court of the United States, averring that there is a controversy, and that the controversy -in the suit is between citizens of different states, and that the matter and amount in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum of five hundred dollars. No answer was filed by any of the defendants.

The question in this case arises between the plaintiff as attaching creditor of the defendant Chase, and intervenor Ehoades, who claims to hold a chattel mortgage upon the attached property. The intervenor was a creditor of Chase and was pressing him for payment. It was finally agreed that Chase should execute to the intervenor a chattel mortgage upon some cows and other stock, but the animals were not specifically pointed out or agreed upon.

The substance of the petition is: that in the year 1872 Robert Cain, plaintiff’s husband, jmrchased a lot on the north side of Vine Street in the city of Des Moines, and erected thereon a brick dwelling house, the .outer wall of which was upon the south line of' the lot and abutted on the sidewalk.

Action to foreclose two mortgages given by the defendants J. B. and E. E. Slaughter, to secure the same debt. The plaintiff asks for a decree making the debt a lien upon the mortgaged property from a date antecedent to the date of the mortgages. The defendant Joseph Clyde claims to own the mortgaged premises by virtue of a sheriff’s deed.

This action is brought to recover the purchase price of 'certain real estate, and to declare the judgment recovered a lien upon the land sold. By consent the cause was referred to the Hon. John Shane, judge of the District Court, to make up and‘try the issues of law and fact, and report bis findings therein. The facts of the case are fully presented by the report of the referee, which is as follows: “ 1.

Action in equity, the object of which is to bave tbe lien of a judgment in favor of the defendant declared to be subordinate to a lien of another judgment owned by tbe plaintiff's. Judgment for tbe defendant, and tbe plaintiffs appeal.

Tiie plaintiff and defendant are corporations duly organized. Prior to the 6th day of June, 1873, the territory ndw known as Lott’s Creek was a part of and included in' the district township of Algona for school purposes. On the 6th day of June, 1873, said territory was, by an order of tbe board of supervisors of Kossuth county, set off, and subsequently organized as Lott’s Creek township.

Ajpjpeal from Clacton Gwouit Court. The plaintiff commenced a suit in attachment against Jacob Bach, before a justice of the peace in Clayton county, and Bach was personally served with notice in said county. On the return day, judgment by default was rendered against Bach for $50.80, and costs. The attachment was served by the garnishment of D. I). Fraser, on whose answer judgment was rendered against him as garnishee for $50.80 and costs, and costs of garnishment.

This is an action of partition. The petition alleges tbat Lucy M. Clark died seized of 145 acres of land, leaving as lier only lieirs tbe defendant, her husband, and Charles F. and Ezra W. Clark, their sons; that said Lucy, prior to her death, conveyed to said Charles said lands which were intended hy her and received by him in lieu of any interest he might he entitled to in the property of, said Lucy as heir at law, by reason whereof defendant, as husband of deceased, is…

Action to recover the value of a certain promissory note executed by one Danfortb and made payable to the order of the plaintiffs, and placed by Danforth in the hands of the defendant, under an agreement, as is alleged, that it should be delivered to plaintiffs; also to recover certain money paid to defendant by Danforth upon a certain other note of a similar character, placed in defendant’s hands, as is alleged, under a similar agreement.

■ Action to recover possession of real estate. The defendants pleaded an equitable defense, which was sustained, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The plaintiff appeals. L. A. Thomas and Graham & Cady, for appellant. DeWitt C. Cram, for appellees.

The plaintiff filed a petition as follows: “ 1. That on the 5th day of March, 18T 9, one I. C. Free-land recovered a judgment against him in this court for the sum of $353.15, and costs of suit, including $35 attorney’s fees. * * * “ 2. .

Action upon a non-negotiable promissory note signed by tbe defendant Gower as principal, and by the defendants Beem, Weaver, Sell and Ineeh as sureties. Gower was not served with notice. Beem, Weaver and Sell aver, for answer, that they signed the note while in the hands of one Stoller, and with the agreement that it should not be delivered unless the signature of one Blajok should be obtained, and that the signature of Blajok never was obtained.

This action is brought to recover of Nelson & Reid $516.63, for merchandise alleged to have been sold to them as a firm. An injunction is prayed to restrain the defendant Reid from negotiating a note secured by a mortgage executed by the defendant Nelson to Reid. An. attachment is also asked against the defendant Nelson.

Action in equity to recover for taxes paid and to enforce a lien therefor. Trial by the court. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

These actions involve substantially the same questions. They were commenced before a justice of the peace. In one case the defendant failed to appear, and was defaulted for want of an appearance. In the other the defendant appeared, but made no answer, and was defaulted for want thereof.

Action to recover possession of certain real estate. The plaintiff’s title is based on a tax deed recorded September 22, 1869, and this action was commenced December 31, 1875. The defendants pleaded the statute of limitations and that they were in possession of the premises in controversy. Trial to the court, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.

Action to establish and enforce a mechanic’s lien. Frank Milliard & Co. were made defendants, and they in a cross-petition asked the establishment of a similar lien, as also did Drake & Dayton, who intervened in the action.

This is an action of certiorari to review the proceedings of the board of supervisors of Lousia county in ordering an election upon the question of the removal of the county seat. The Circuit Court held that the supervisors exceeded their powers in proceedings had which resulted in an order for an election, and reversed such order and required the supervisors to proceed anew in the manner prescribed by tbe law as declared in tbe judgment of the court.

Action upon a district township treasurer’s bond. The defendant IT. J. McCord was the duly elected and qualified treasurer of the plaintiff district township, for the year commencing September 19, 1877. The other defendants were sureties upon his official bond. The petition avers that as such treasurer he received large sums of money, and wrongfully appropriated the same to his own use. The answer contains a general denial.

This is an action of certiorari. The plaintiffs sought by their petition to have a canvass of the votes of an election for the relocation of the county seat of Louisa county set aside; and also the vacation of an order made by defendants declaring “ Columbus Junction and the additions to said townto be the county seat of said county. There was judgment in accord with the prayer of the petition, and defendants appeal.

Indictment for murder. Trial by jury, verdict guilty of murder in the second degree, and judgment. The defendant appeals.

This action is instituted upon a note executed by J. H. Greene to the order of George Williams, and by him indorsed in blank.

This action was brought before a justice of the peace to recover upon the subscription of defendant to the capital stock of plaintiff, and judgment was rendered for plain tiff. Upon appeal to the Circuit Court a trial was had to the court without a jury and judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff agpeals to this court.

The defendant was charged, in an information filed in the office of the mayor of the city, with the violation of an ordinance of the city providing punishment for the offense of keeping a house of ill-fame.' The cause was sent on a change of venue to a justice of the peace, where the defendant was, upon a trial, convicted and fined, and an order made that lie be committed until the fine and costs were paid.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of larceny, and sentenced to the penitentiary for three years. He now prosecutes his apjieal to this court. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

alleged ground that he is the equn table owner thereof. There was a decree in the court below dividing the land between the said parties, and charging the. same with the payment of a certain sum of money to one Tames Ogle. Said Ogle had before the commencement of this' action instituted a suit to recover an interest in said land, and the two actions were consolidated by an order of. the court. The cause was tried at the August term, 1878, of the District Court.

<p>1. Homestead: attachment in action to annul marriage: conveyance. The law of homestead, has no application in actions for divorce or to annul marriages, and the attachment authorized by section 2227 of the Code, in such actions, may lawfully be levied upon the homestead of the parties. A grantee of the adverse party subsequent to the levying of such an attachment takes the property subject to all the rights which the plaintiff maybe, decreed therein upon the trial of the action.</p>

This is a proceeding of habeas corpus to determine the rightful custody and control of Lena L. Kirkpatrick, an infant. The proceeding was instituted before the Hon. John B. Drayer, judge of the Lee Circuit Court, who ordered that the custody of the child be given to the petitioner, Christina H. Kirkpatrick. From this order the defendant appeals. Hpon request of the defendant the court fixed the amount of the supersedeas bond at $1,300.

Action in chancery to foreclose the equity of redemption under a tax deed made upon the sale of a lot in Council Bluffs for city taxes. The cause was sent to a referee, and upon his report a decree granting the relief prayed for hy plaintiff was entered. Defendants appeal. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

<p>1. Tax Deed: tenants in common. Evidence considered under which it was held that the plaintiff entered into possession of land as a tenant in common with others, and that a tax deed acquired by him to the whole tract, while so in possesion, was void as against his co-tenants.</p>

The plaintiffs in this case filed a petition claiming of tbe defendants, Charles M. Salomon and M. Nnsbanm, $300.

The indictment charged the defendant as follows: For that the defendant “ did then and there, with intent to commit a public offense, to-wit: larceny, feloniously and willfully break and enter in the night time the dwelling-house of one T. Ii. Elder, then and there being in said house goods, wares and valuable articles kept by said Elder.” The defendant pleaded not guilty and appeals.

<p>1. Contract: composition op indebtedness: fraud. Where the plaintiffs, who were creditors of the defendants, accepted as a composition of the indebtedness due them the note of the defendants, signed by another as surety, for fifty per cent of their claim, it was held that after the payment of such note they could not repudiate the composition and recover the remaining fifty per cent of the original claim still unpaid on account of an .alleged fraud of the defendants, of which they had knowledge when they accepted payment of the note.</p>

<p>1. Principal and Agent: ratification of agent’s acts. Evidence held to show a ratification hy a principal of the acts of his agent, in making a sale and transfer of a certain sheriff’s certificate owned hy the principal.</p>

I. MUNICIPAL corporations: powers of: foiMntotcation-The town of Bloomfield, having been regularly incorporated under the general incorporation laws of this State,'enacted .an ordinance as follows: Sec. 1. “Be it ordained by the town council of the Town of d Eloomfield, that, if any person shall be found in a state of intoxication, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and the marshal may, without warrant,, and it is hereby made his duty to, take such person into…

Action at law upon the guaranty of a promissory note. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury, and upon a finding of facts a judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.

<p> Appeal from Des Moines District Court. </p> <p>On the 17th day of October, 1877, an indictment was filed in the court below, of which the following is a copy:</p> <p>“ The grand jury of the county of Des Moines, in the name of, and by the authority of, the State of Iowa, do find and present, that A. W. Parsons, on the 1st day of September, 1877, at Des Moines county and State aforesaid; the said A. W. Parsons then and there being the treasurer of the board of directors of the independent school district of Burlington, Iowa, did, by virtue of his office and employment, and whilst the said A. W. Parsons was employed in said office, have,' receive and take into his possession a large sum of money, to-wit: to the amount of $46,000, being national bank bills' and treasury notes, lawful money of the United States, and of the value of $46,000 of the goods and chattels and property and money of said independent school district of Burlington, Iowa; and that said money, national bank bills and treasury notes then and there unlawfully, fraudulently and feloniously, did embezzle and convert to his own use.</p> <p>“And so the jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do say that the said A. W. Parsons did, then and there in the manner and form aforesaid, the aforesaid money, national bank bills and treasury notes of the goods, chattels and moneys of the said independent school district of Burlington, Iowa, feloniously did steal, take and carry away — contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Iowa.</p> <p>“D. N. Sprague, District Attorney.”</p> <p>At the May term, 1879, of said court there was a trial to a jury upon a plea of not guilty, which resulted in a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of embezzlement. A motion in arrest of judgment was overruled, and judgment was pronounced upon the verdict. Defendant appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from Delaware District Court. </p> <p>An indictment was presented to the Delaware District Court charging the defendant with the crime of subornation of perjury. ' The defendant was tried and convicted, and he appeals.</p>

Action to recover damages for an assault and battery committed by defendant upon plaintiff. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant; plaintiff appeals.

The defendant was indicted for an assault with intent to rob one Giles Marlett, was tried, found guilty as charged, and sentenced to the penitentiary for three years. He appeals.

Action upon a contract employing plaintiff to teach a public school. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff; defendant appeals.

Union District Ooru/rti Action on a promissory note. The defense pleaded was that the defendant Elliot borrowed of one Camp $410, for which he agreed to pay thirty-six per cent interest per annum, and the defendants executed a promissory note to Camp therefor; that said note was assigned by Camp to I). D. Gregory. This note was taken up and a new note given Gregory, which he assigned to the plaintiff.

The question in this case arises upon the taxation of costs. The plaintiff averred in his petition that the defendant committed upon him an assault and battery, whereby he sustained damages to the amount of $5,000. He also averred that the defendant spoke defamatory words of him, whereby he sustained damages to the amount of $.10,000. The defendant pleaded a general denial, and also a counterclaim.

Action to recover upon an alleged subscription to tlie stock of a banking corporation. The question arises upon demurrer to tlie petition, tlie defendant claiming that the petition does not show that the defendant became a subscriber to the stock in such sense that he became obligated to take and pay for it. The corporation is the Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank of Bloomfield. The plaintiff is the assignee of the corporation.

<p>1. Evidence: foreign judgment: impeachment of. Where, in defense to an indictment for adultery, the defendant offered in evidence a decree of divorce obtained in the territory of Utah, it was held that parol evidence was admissible on the part of the State to show that the ,■ court granting the decree had no jurisdiction.</p>

Action at law upon a bond executed by defendants to plaintiffs to secure indebtedness to be contracted by defendant Caldwell to plaintiff. There was a verdict and judgment • for plaintiffs; defendants appeal. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

The plaintiff owns one hundred and sixty acres of cultivated lands, situated on both sides of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Eailroad. On the 11th day of September, 1879, he commenced this action, asking a writ of manclarrms, commanding the defendant to provide an open crossing across the railroad track. The cause was tried to the court, and relief was granted as prayed. The defendant appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

The question in the case arises upon the taxation of costs. J. P. Stevenson as the. guardian, and Jemima Forsythe as the mother, of Julia Forsythe, a minor, presented a petition to the Hon. J. B. Drayer, Circuit Judge for Lee county, for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of the said Julia Forsythe, upon the alleged ground that she was illegally restrained by the defendants of her liberty. The writ was granted and served.

.On the 22d day of February, 1879, Samuel Hawkins made his last will and testament. After making provisions for the erection of grave-stones and fences at the grave of his deceased wife and mother, and also his own, the will concluded as follows: “ The balance of my property to be divided as follows: $25 to J. O. Hawkins, my brother, and the balance’ divided between W. IT. Hawkins and Mary E. Barton, my brother and sister, W. IT.

Action in equity to foreclose a mortgage. The mortgage appears to have been executed by the defendants John TIaight and Roxma Haight, his wife. It was alleged in the petition that the defendants Linkendoffer and Richardson claimed some interest in the mortgaged property, but that whatever interests they had were subordinate to the mortgage. Service of .an original notice was had upon all the parties.

Action for an injunction and to obtain possession of a certain deed.

On the 19th day of December, 1877, the plaintiff filed a petition alleging, in substance, that in 1875 the Ottumwa Water Power Company, a corporation duly organized, entered into a written contract with D. B. Sears & Son, by which they were to furnish materials for, and do work upon, the construction of its water-works; that said Sears & Son commenced work under their contract in the spring of 1875, and continued during 1875, 1876, and part of 1877, furnishing materials and…

This is an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff, as widow of S. T. Caldwell, deceased, an allowance for support for herself and two minor children, from his estate. Her . petition showed that she had the care of two children under ■fifteen years of age, and that six hundred dollars was necessary for their and her support for the period of twelve . months from the time of her husband’s death.

Action of replevin to recover the possession of nineteen head of cattle of the alleged value of $250. The cause was tried before the court without a jury, and a judgment was rendered for defendant for $23.75, the value of his interest in the property as found by the court. Plaintiff appeals.

In answer to a citation, David Bare, guardian, made a report to the court in March, 1879, as to the condition of the estate.

A judgment was rendered against plaintiff and others in an action to recover for an injury to tbe personal property of plaintiff in that action by the negligent acts of defendants. This proceeding is to obtain a new trial in that action. An injunction was allowed herein to restrain the enforcement of the judgment against plaintiff, which, upon motion, was dissolved. Plaintiff appeals.

The petition states that the plaintiff, while driving a horse harnessed to a wagon along and upon a street in the city, and without fault and negligence on her part, was violently thrown from the wagon by reason of the horse talcing fright at a steam motor there being used on said street under the authority and permission of the defendant. It is alleged the plaintiff was greatly injured, and a recovery therefor is sought. There were two counts in the petition.

.Circuit Court. Action to recover eighty acres' of land and to redeem the same from tax sale. The land is in-'the possession of the defendant Miller, who alone defends. He files a cross-bill asking that his title be quieted, and in case such relief is denied that he be allowed for taxes paid and improvements. Both plaintiff and defendant Miller claim through one .George Stuart, who was, first purchaser from the government.

This is an action for the' admeasurement of the dower of plaintiff in the lands of her deceased husband. . By the judgment of the Circuit Court it was declared that, plaintiff was entitled, as her dower interest, to one-half of the lands, and referees were appointed to admeasure it. From this judgment defendants appeal. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

The plaintiff was sheriff of Warren county. One John W. Brannon was indicted for a crime by the grand jury of Marion county, and the venue of the cause was changed to Warren county. Brannon had before that been convicted of another crime, and was in confinement' in the penitentiary at Fort Madison. Two other parties were also imprisoned at the same place who were witnesses, one for the State and .one for said Brannon.

The petition, in substance, states that E. R. Gardner was the owner of the legal or equitable title to certain real estate described in the petition, and that he executed a mortgage thereon to the plaintiff in 1874; that for the purpose of paying said mortgage debt, the said premises were afterward, in 1878, conveyed to the plaintiff. In 1876 said Gardner contracted for lumber of one Jensen, to the amount of $147.12, and therewith erected a house on said premises.

Appeal from, Boone Bistriot Oov/rt. Action to determine the title to an office; judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant apjieals.

<p> Appeal from Boone District Oov/rt. </p> <p>The petition alleged ££ that the defendant is a private corporation duly organized, chartered and existing under and by virtue of the law of the State of Pennsylvania, for the purpose of carrying on the business of common carriers of goods and merchandise. That the defendant operates a fast freight line and transports goods and merchandise over the line of the O. & N. W. R’y Oo., and operates the same through the county of Boone, Iowa, and has an office and agent at Boone for the purpose of receiving and shipment of goods and merchandise and transacting other business. That June 15th, 1878, plaintiff contracted with defendant to carry and transport, as common carrier, eiglity-six barrels of packed eggs from Boone, with plaintiffs as consignors, to be delivered in tlie city of New York, to G. W. Martin & Bros., at defendant’s usual rate of carriage, which has been paid by plaintiff. That said eggs were shipped in good order and carefully packed by plaintiff,, and. when received by defendant were marked £ O K,’ said letters meaning that said eggs were in good order, well packed and in proper condition for carriage. That it was the duty of defendant, under its contract, to provide the car in which said eggs were shipped with sufficient ice to keep said eggs cool, and to carry and handle the same with care, and that said goods should be carried without re-shipment from Boone to New York City without change of cars.” The petition further alleges that the defendant so negligently conducted in failing to provide the ears with ice, and in handling the eggs, and in the transhipment of them from the car in which they left Boone, that 2,850 dozen of said eggs were broken, spoiled and destroyed. The plaintiff asked judgment for $3.70.50.</p> <p>The defendant answered as follows: “For a plea to the jurisdiction of the court and in abatement, defendant denies that it is or ever has been a corporation, either public or private, and duly organized, chartered or existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, or under, the laws of any other state or.government, for the purpose of carrying on the business of common carrier in goods and merchandise or otherwise; denies that it is a common carrier; denies that it has, or ever had, an office, or agent at Boone, or elsewhere in Boone county, Iowa, for the purpose of receiving or shipment of goods or merchandise, or the transaction of other business. It avers that it is not a corporation because it was never organized as such under the laws of any state or government, and never pretended to be a corporation and never was operated as such, and never has had any capacity to sue or be sued as a corporation; that it did not at any of the times mentioned in the petition transact business at Boone, Iowa, or have an office or agent or agency there for the transaction of business; that the matters complained of in the jietition did not grow out of, and are not connected with, any office or agent, or agency of defendant at Boone; and that by means of the premises this court lias no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this suit, or of the defendant, and cannot proceed to the trial or disposition of this cause.” In addition to this answer the defendant also denied each allegation of the petition. The cause was tried to the court and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $370 and costs. The defendant ajrpeals.</p>

This is an action at law npon two written instruments of the same tenor and effect, and in these words: “No. 51.

<p>1. Practico in the Supreme Court: equity cases: assignment of errors. Y/hero a party in an equity ease stands upon the ruling on a motion or demurrer, and appeals therefrom, exceptions should be talren and errors assigned.</p>

This is an action to recover from Ammon, Greer & Co., Ammon, Scott & Co., George ~W. Scott and John Ammon, the amount of several promissory notes, to foreclose a mortgage executed to secure said notes, and to declare the lien of tbe mortgage paramount to tbe lien of a subsequent mortgage executed to G. E. Dickerman, and by him assigned to S. W. Matteson. Tbe court granted tbe relief prayed by tbe plaintiffs. The defendants S. W. Matteson and C. E. Dickerman appeal.

Action to recover for a car load of wheat shipped by the plaintiff to tbe defendant. Trial to tbe court, a finding of. tacts, and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff’ appeals.

Action in chancery to set aside the' probate of a will, and to declare the will void as to real property within this State. A demurrer to the answer of defendant was sustained, and defendant electing to stand upon her pleadings a decree was accordingly entered granting the relief prayed for by plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

In February, 1878, the defendant Nelson brought an action against the plaintiff before a justice of the peace for the recovery of certain personal property, to-wit: one pair French mill burrs, frame and hopper complete. No replevin bond was given, and no writ for the possession of the property was asked for nor issued. .

Appeal frcnn, MahasJca Oi/rcuit Oowrt. Action in equity to establish, and enforce an alleged vendor’s lien upon certain real estate. Upon a trial the petition of the plaintiff was dismissed, and there was a decree quieting the title, in defendants, in accord with the prayer of a cross-bill. Plaintiff appeals.

Action of forcible entry and detainer. The petition alleges that defendants entered into possession of tbe property involved in the suit by stealth, and wrongfully detain the same. The answer denies the allegations of the petition and as defenses to the action alleges: 1. That defendants are tenants of plaintiff. 2.

One N. S., Stein was the owner in fee of a lot in the town of Leighton upon which there was a mill, which he operated. It was near the right of way of the Keokuk & Des Moines Railroad. Ho obtained permission of the superintendent of the railroad company to erect a corn elevator on the right of way.

This action was commenced October 10,1877, upon a promissory note for $500, dated October 17, 1867, and for the foreclosure of a mortgage executed to secure it.

• Action to recover double damages, under the statute, for the destruction of four horses and a colt by a train upon defendant’s railroad running over them, at a point where defendant had a right to fence the road. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for double the value of the property. Defendant appeals.

Action in equity to foreclose a mortgage which was assigned and guaranteed by defendant Sberman. A decree of foreclosure of tbe mortgage was entered and a personal judgment rendered against Sberman, from wbicb be appeals.

On the 17th day of December, 1878, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written agreement to submit certain questions of difference between them to W. S. Taylor, J. H. Camburn and O. O. L. Jones, as arbitrators, stipulating that the award should be made in writing by the 1st day of March, 1879, and delivered to the Linn District Court, and that judgmcnt should be entered thereon. On the 26th day of February, 1879, two of said arbitrators, J. Ii.

Action in equity to determine tbe right to certain funds collected by tbe defendant Miller as sheriff. These funds resulted as a surplus from tbe sale of certain real estate upon tbe foreclosure of a mortgage against one Hays. Tbe defendants Perry & Townsend at tbe tbe time of tbe sale held liens upon tbe property by reason of two judgments obtained by them against Hays.

Appeal froon Muscatine District Gourt. Action to recover for certain wheat stored by plaintiff in defendants’ elevator. The plaintiff claims that the defendants wrongfully appropriated the wheat. The defendants deny that they wrongfully appropriated the wheat. They also plead in bar a discharge in bankruptcy. There was a trial by jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals.

Action to redeem from an execution sale made in pursuance of the foreclosure of a mortgage. The plaintiff shows in his petition that at the time of the sale he was the holder of-a lion upon the premises junior to that which was foreclosed. The person who foreclosed was one Morris. The defendant Debolt at the time of the foreclosure owned the premises.

Action to recover the value of thirteen head of cattle. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Action in replevin. The question arises upon an order allowing a change of place of trial from the Circuit Court of O’Brien county to the Circuit Court of Sioux county. The application was made for the change by the defendants, upon the ground that the action was brought in the wrong county. The application being allowed the plaintiff appeals.

<p>1, Sheriff: fees: construction of statute. Section 3788 of the Cofi¡9 authorizes a sheriff to charge and collect a fee of two dollars for the service of an execution.</p>

Action of replevin to recover a horse, which it is alleged the sheriff of Dubuque county attached as the property of P. S. Malvin, at the suit of the defendant Christoph. Tho action was originally brought against the sheriff, and Christoph, the party in interest, was substituted as defendant, by .order of the court.

<p>1. Evidence: deposition: error in name oe witness-. Under a commission to take ’depositions, only those of persons named in the commission and the notice served on the adverse party can be taken. While the omission of a second initial letter, or a variation which does not change the sound of the name, is immaterial, the deposition of a person whose- name is clearly different from the one given in the commission, although the one intended thereby, is invalid, and, on motion, will be suppressed.</p>

<p>1. Municipal. Corporation: power to vacate streets. The power of a city council to vacate streets in a city organized under a. special charter, hut afterward incorporated under the general law of the State, discussed.</p> <p>2. Equitable Jurisdiction: injunction: passage op ordinance by city council. Equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin the passage of an . ordinance by a city council establishing or vacating streets, c&rláorqri being, under the statute, the proper method of reviewing such action..</p>

This is an action for the recovery of damages 'for injuries sustained by a fall occasioned by an accumulation of ice on a street of the defendant. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff for $2085. Upon motion of defendant the verdict was set aside, and a new trial was granted. The plaintiff appeals.

This is an action in equity to se't aside the defendant’s tax title to certain lands. The petition in substance alleges, First. That one A. W. Ballard, whilst he was the owner of the premises in controversy, and under obligation to pay the taxes thereon, purchased the land at the treasurer’s sale for delinquent taxes, and assigned the certificate of purchase to tlie defendant, who had full knowledge of all the facts. Second'.

Action upon a promissory note. The question presented pertains to the regularity of the proceedings by which the judgment was obtained. The action was pending in the District Court of Hardin county,'but it was agreed between the parties that a hearing should be had in the case before the Hon. I. J. Mitchell, judge of the District Court, at the office of the counsel for the plaintiff at Marshalltown, in Marshall county, and that judgment should be entered in vacation.

Action to recover the sum of four dollars, alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to the township trustees for their services as fence viewers. The plaintiff and defendant reside in the town of Peosta, and each is the owner of certain lots .in that town. The lots owned by the plaintiff are separated from those owned by the defendant by a public alley. The plaintiff built a fence along the line of her lots adjacent to the alley.

Action to recover forty acres of land. The plaintiffs’ claim is based on a tax deed. The defendant claims that he acquired from plaintiffs their interest in the land after the execution of the tax deed. He prays that they be barred from setting up any title to the land, and that they be decreed to convey the same to him. The court denied the relief asked by him, and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant appeals.

The plaintiff upon application obtained from tbe Circuit Court an order for tbe issuance of a writ of certiorari, to test tbe validity of a eity ordinance, and also to restrain tbe enforcement of the ordinance. From these orders the defendant appeals.

The jfiaintiff brought this action to recover of the defendants, First, for an alleged violation of an oral lease of certain real estate, and Second, for an alleged trespass in entering the premises of the plaintiff, and removing goods therefrom. Issue having been joined, there was a trial by jury, and a verdict for the plaintiff upon the cause of action for breach of contract of lease in the sum of $150, against defendant E. A. Wilson alone.

'The defendant, as the legal guardian of the plaintiff, was, upon the plaintiff’s petition, cited to make a settlement of his account as guardian, and it was agked that defendant might be removed, and compelled to pay over the amount in his hands due to the plaintiff. The defendant filed a report, and afterwards an amendment thereto, from which the following facts appear. The plaintiff is the son of the wife of the defendant by a former marriage.

A motion to set aside a sale of lands upon execution was sustained, and from this order plaintiff appeals. Tbe facts of tbe case appear in tbe opinion.

Action on the policy of insurance against loss by fire. Trial by jury. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Appeal from Des Moines Circuit Court. Action at law upon an account for board, etc. There was a verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

The defendant John Harper brought an action at law against the plaintiff, which was tried before a jury in February, 1877. There was a verdict for Harper, and a motion of the defendant therein for a new trial was overruled in October, 1878, and judgment rendered on the verdict. The plaintiff herein brought an action at law against defendants, which also was tried before a jury, who rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants.

Action in chancery to foreclose a mortgage executed by defendant Wright. Butler claims the property under a tax title. A judgment was rendered against Wright for the amount due on the mortgage, hut no foreclosure was had thereon, the court holding that Butler’s tax title divested plaintiff’s mortgage, lien. Plaintiff appeals:

At the first meeting as a board of equalization of the city council of defendant, in April, 1879, the plaintiff complained in writing that the assessor of the city had assessed against it the sum of $30,000, on account of paid up capital for the then current year, when all of its capital was invested in nontaxable bonds of the United States, and the board was asked to cancel the assessment. The application was overruled. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court.

<p> Appeal from Dubuque Circuit Court. </p> <p>Jane McDaniel commenced this action, and alleged she and William McDaniel were married in 1831, and that he died possessed of an estate of inheritance in and to the south half of out-lot six hundred and sixty-seven in the city of Du-' buque, and the said Jane asked to have her dower in said premises admeasured; that the defendants were in possession and denied her right. ></p> <p>Julia West and others, claiming to be heirs at law of Will-, iam McDaniel, appeared to the action and filed their answer, and cross-petition, in which they claimed to he entitled to recover possession of said premises.</p> <p>The defendants, in their answer, claimed title. The cross-petitioners demurred thereto, which was overruled, and the cross-petitioners appeal.</p> <p>Afterward there was a trial to the court between the plaintiff and defendants, and judgment was rendered against plaintiff, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1. Homestead: exemption: barn. A bam or stable used for ordinary purposes in connection with, a homestead is properly appurtenant to such homestead within the meaning of section 1997 of the Code, and is exempt, without regard to its value.</p> <p>2. -: -: building used in part as a store. The defendant owned a building twenty-two by forty feet in size, and two stories high, with cellar; the upper story occupied by him with his family as a residence, and the lower story used as a store. The cellar was used both in connection with the store and for family purposes, cho entrance principally used by the family being through the store: Held, that the entire building was exempt as the homestead of the defendant. The case-distinguished from Rhodes, Pegram &• Co. v. McCormick, 4 Iowa, 368.</p>

The defendant George L. Wheeler, as constable, levied certain writs of attachment upon a span of mules, and a wagon and harness, at the suit of the defendants Hey and Butterfield against one Walters. The said property was held by said Wheeler upon said writs until June 1, 1878, at which time the attachment suits were tried and judgments were rendered for the plaintiffs and against said Walters.

This is an action of replevin for 225 bushels of wheat. The writ was issued on the 26th day of September, 1879, and, tbe wheat being in stack, tbe sheriff delivered it to tbe plaintiff, who proceeded to thresh and market it. Each party claimed to be the absolute owner of tbe grain. Tbe trial was bad on tbe 19th day of November, 1879.

The plaintiff in his petition sought to recover for work and labor performed for the defendants, upon a contract that his compensation should be one hundred and fifty dollars per month. The answer denied the allegations of the petition, and also stated that the work and labor were performed under a verbal contract, by the terms of which the plaintiff was to receive a certain stated commission on the value of the work, in full cohapensation for his services.

This is an action in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages of the defendant for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors to plaintiff’s husband, by reason of which he became an habitual drunkard, to the injury of plaintiff in her person, property and means of support. There was an answer denying that defendant at any time sold plaintiff’s husband liquor of any kind. There was a trial by jury and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Deeendant and two others were indicted for robbery, committed by stealing money by force and violence from the person of one McNeil. Upon separate trials the defendants were all convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary. Defendant Dayhuff appeals.

Action in chancery to foreclose a mortgage. There was a decree in the court below granting the relief prayed for in plaintiff’s petition. Defendants appeal.

Ajpypeal from Lvrm OvreuAt Court. Action to recover upon a contract for services. In 1874 J. E. Stansbury, tbe defendant’s intestate, was a practicing physician in Linn county. In that year the plaintiff, a younger brother, commenced residing with him and studying medicine in his office, and continued to reside with him, studying medióme and assisting him to some extent, except when absent at a medical school, until some time in 1877. In September, 1878, J. E. Stansbury died.

Action to foreclose a mortgage upon a farm, executed to the plaintiff by the defendant Edward Griggs, and for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of tlie mortgaged property, and apply the rents and profits in satisfaction of the debt.

Action to foreclose a mortgage executed by defendant Winter. Woodford & Wheeler were made defendants and pleaded they were entitled to a mechanic’s lien which was superior to the mortgage. The plaintiff moved the court to compel said Woodford & Wheeler to set out more fully certain specified matters. This motion was in part overruled. A demurrer to the answer was also overruled, and the plaintiff appeals.

Appeal from Franklw% Gi/reuit Cov/rt. Action on a promissory note. Trial to the court, judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

<p>1. Criminal Law: evidence: admissions. The State v. Westfall, 49 Iowa, 332, followed.</p>

Action to recover forty acres of land. The plaintiff claims under a tax deed. The sale took place in 1871 for the unpaid taxes of 1870. The defendants claim the land was not taxable. Trial to the court, judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Action on tbe covenant against incumbrances in a conveyance of real estate. Trial to the court, judgment for tbe plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Action to foreclose a mortgage upon certain real estate. There was a trial upon the merits, and decree dismissing plaintiffs’ petition, and they appeal. .

The plaintiff commenced this proceeding in the court below to set aside a judgment obtained by the defendant against him. An order was made vacating the judgment, and ordering a new trial. Defendant appeals.

Action to, recover possession of a certain street in tlie city of Dubuque, and for damages alleged to have been sustained by the wrongful use of tbe street. The plaintiffs are the owners of a certain lot in the city of Dubuque, fronting upon what was formerly called Eighth street, but now Julien avenue. Hpon this lot are two brick and one frame house.

Action to recover the possession of, and quiet the title to, forty acres of land in Boone .county. The defendants in their answer set up adverse title, which they pray may be quieted in them. The relief sought by plaintiff was granted by the decree of the District Court; defendants appeal.

Action commenced before a justice of the peace. The justice rendered judgment against the defendants, and upon appeal to the Circuit Court judgment was rendered against Roberts and the sureties on the appeal bond. Warner and the sureties appeal.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendants Burrows, Watts and Prentice upon certain promissory notes.

Action to foreclose a mortgage. A demurrer to the answei Was sustained, and defendants elected to stand upon their pleadings. A decree was entered granting tlie relief prayed for in the petition. Defendants appeal.

In November, 1871, a decree was rendered in a certain cause wherein H. IT. Spafford was plaintiff, and Charles Williams, O. Lamb & Son., O. W. Cunningham, A. Legg, Abbott & Knisely and Cutler Downer were defendants. In this decree it was found that II.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. The plaintiff, in an action brought in the Circuit Court, recovered judgment against the defendant for the recovery of the real estate in question. Upon appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed. The plaintiff applied to the clerk for a writ of possession, which was refused.

These two cases were tried to the court below on the same testimony, and they are submitted here together. They are actions in equity to establish parol liens upon the proceeds of certain cattle, a fund in the hands of the defendant as administrator of the estate of James Elliott, deceased.

Action to recover for work and labor performed by plaintiff for defendant Rodenbach. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, and a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the Circuit Court, where a trial was had which also resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

<p>1. Practice: bill of exceptions: filing of. Where time beyond the term is given to settle and file a bill of exceptions it must be filed as -well as signed within the time. Following Cobb v. Chase, ante, 196.</p>

At tbe general election in tbe year 1878, the defendant Geo. E. Jones was elected county treasurer of Boone county, for two years from January, 1874. He served tbe full term of tbe office to wbicb be was elected. At tbe general election in 1875, one J. W. Snell was elected to said office, for the term commencing in January, 1876.

On the 21st day of June, 1871, the plaintiff sold to the defendant certain lands, executing to him a bond for a deed, and taking in consideration thereof four promissory notes, each for the sum of $1010, payable on the 10th day of April, 1875, 1876, 1877, and 1878, respectively, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. This action is brought upon the last three of these notes, and to foreclose the title bond.

<p>1. Practice in the Supreme Court: abstract: amendment. Where, at the time of the submission of a case to the Supreme Court, the appellant filed an amendment to his abstract intended to cure defects in the original abstract, pointed out in an abstract and argument served and filed by the appellee a month before the submission, it was held that the amendment was not filed in time, and would, on motion of the appellee, be stricken from the files.</p>

Action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of a defective street. There was a trial without a jury, and judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

This is an action of replevin to recover possession of a team, wagon and barness, levied upon by tbe defendants to satisfy a judgment recovered against tbe plaintiff. Tbe plaintiff claims tbat tbe property is exempt from execution.

Action at law upon a written contract between plaintiffs and defendant for grading and masonry done in the construction of a part of defendant’s railroad. The cause was sent to a referee. Exceptions to Ms report were taken by defendant, wbicli were in part sustained. Both parties appeal.

Tue petition of plaintiff alleges in substance that in the forepart of the year 187b, as a member of the firm of Montgomery & Scott, attorneys at law, the plaintiff, at the request of defendants, rendered professional services to them about the preparation of a petition for rehearing, in a case entitled Crouse v. Morse, pending in the Supreme Court, which services were worth $300.

Action upon a promissory note. One of the defendants was a surety who filed an equitable answer asking that the contract expressed in the note be reformed. There was a judgment for plaintiff. The defendant, who is surety on the note, appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

The facts as stated by the appellant are, that: “In July, 1878, the plaintiff sold to the defendant one hundred and twenty acres of land situated in Allamakee county, Iowa. The contract was made in writing and is contained in the correspondence between the parties.

Ajpjpeal from, Chickasaw District Cou/rt. The defendant was indicted for the seduction of one Clara Williams, was tried and convicted. He appeals.

' Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for materials furnished to the defendant McConnell for the erection of a building. McConnell made default.

Action in chancery to quiet the title to certain land in Butler county. Upon a trial on the merits .plaintiff’s petition was dismissed, and the title of the land was declared to be in defendant Hams. Plaintiff appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

<p> Appeal f rom, Bremer Circuit Court. </p>

<p>Appeal from Jackson District Court.</p>

Action in chancery to foreclose a mortgage. There was a decree of foreclosure in the court below, from which defendants appeal. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

<p>Power of attorney: forgery: evidence considered.</p>

<p> Appeal from Butler Circuit Court, </p>

The defendant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and sentenced to pay a fine of $20 and costs. He appealed to this court.

<p> Appeal from Story District Court. </p> <p>Indictment for larceny. Trial by jury. Verdict guilty, and j adgment. The defendant appeals.</p>

This action is brought to recover of the defendants Sloan, Wakefield and Smith, the amount of a promissory note for the sum-of five hundred dollars, and to foreclose a mortgage executed by James B. Sloan to secure the same. The plaintiff alleges that the-defendants Dwight Bannister and LaviniaM. Bannister claim some interest in the mortgaged property, and that whatever claim they have is junior and inferior to the plaintiff’s mortgage lien.

The appellants filed a motion to set aside a sheriff’s salé of real estate under an execution. Pending the motion, an injunction was issued restraining the sheriff from conveying the premises to the purchaser. The plaintiff filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, which was sustained, and the motion to'set asidé the sale overruled. The defendants appeal.

Action of replevin to recover possession of a reaper and mower. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

Action on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded a failure of consideration. Trial to the court, judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.

. Action -to recover upon three promissory notes of $500 each, and to foreclose a title bond. The defendants pleaded payment. There was a decree for plaintiff for $1,810.30 and costs, and a special execution was ordered against the property. The defendants appeal.

<p> Appeal from Hamilton District Court. </p>

Action upon an account for work to recover $28.18. The action was ■brought, originally, before a justice of the peace. Judgment was rendered ágáinst the plaintiff for costs. An appeal was taken by the plaintiff to the Circuit Court, where a motion was made by the defendant to dismiss the appeal, which motion was sustained.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of embezzlement, was tried, convicted, and sentenced tó the penitentiary for one year. He appeals.

Defendants were indicted for keeping a nuisance, in that they did keep and maintain a building wherein they sold intoxicating liquors in violation of law. From a judgment and sentence upon a verdict of guilty, they appeal. Another defendant indicted with them was acquitted.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of keeping a gambling house, and now appeals to this court. Another indicted with him was acquitted.