Volume 54 — Wisconsin Reports

This action was brought by John 8. Dean and Lansing W. ILoyt, as executors of the last will and testament of Nathaniel W. Dean, to procure a construction of the codicil to said will. All the legatees named in the will, viz., Harriet H. Dean, Harriet D. Sterling, Thaddeus Dean, Anna W. Huntlejq and Maria M., Irving W. and Adelaide Dean, were made defendants.

This action was brought to determine the rights of the plaintiff in and to a large amount of chattel .property and notes mortgaged and pledged by his assignor, the ’Wonewoc Manufacturing Company, to the Reedsbnrg Bank (which is a banking copartnership composed of the defendants D. B. Rudd,F. 0. Rudd, Greene, Geffert and Lush), and to the defendant the First National Bank of Baraboo. The record is very voluminous.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taxloe: “The plaintiffs obtained judgment against the appellants-Taylor dk Taylor, and also against Lewis Baiter as. garnishee;. Baher was summoned as garnishee before judgment was obtained in the action against the Taylors. The issue between the plaintiffs and the garnishee was tried by a jury.

Ejectment, for a village lot. The plaintiff claims title by deeds from the defendant Cutler.

The plaintiff was county judge of Manitowoc county during the years 1870 to 1873, inclusive. He kept his office away from the court bouse during his whole term, and paid the rent thereof. In May, 1878, he presented to the board of supervisors a claim against the county for the amount of rent so paid by him. The board disallowed the claim. The plaintiff thereupon appealed to the circuit court.

Action upon a policy of insurance against fire. There was a special verdict, and cross motions for judgment thereon; and from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendant appealed. The error assigned by the appellant- will sufficiently appear from the opinion. To the point that there was such an alienation of the property by the execution sale as worked a forfeiture of the policy under its expressed conditions, they cited Wood on Ins., § 325; Tomlinson v. Ins.

<p> “Legally laid out roads” defined. </p> <p>In sec. 1227, R. S. (which requires, under a penalty for neglect, the erection of guide-boards at certain points), the words “ legally laid out ros,ds ” apply only to roads laid out by the authorities in accordance with the statute upon that subject, and not to roads which have become such by mere use or dedication.</p>

This is an action for damages for speaking of- and concerning the plaintiff the words “ She is slow poisoning her husband,” thereby meaning that- she was feloniously and maliciously administering poison to her husband, a brother of the defendant, and then very sick, with the intent to kill and murder him. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff; and defendant appealed from the judgment. 1.

This action was brought by a married woman and her husband for a trespass upon her land in that the defendant unlawfully entered upon the same and piled timber thereon. The answer, in addition to a general denial, alleged that the land in question was a public way or alley, and that defendant owned land immediately adjoining it. The court found the facts in defendant’s favor; and from a judgment pursuant to the finding, plaintiffs appealed.

APPEAL' from the Circuit Court for Outagamie County. -The facts in this case are substantially as follows: One Fisher sold and conveyed to one Craney two lots in the villa'ge of Seymour, on which was a hotel. Craney gave Fisher his promissory notes (presumably for purchase money) for $2,300, and executed to Fisher a mortgage on the lots to séeure payment thereof. These securities are dated February 26, 1876.

Action for injury to plaintiff’s land from flowage. Plaintiff had a verdict; a new trial was refused; and defendant appealed from a judgment pursuant to the verdict. The principal question involved will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Action for a trespass to' land, and the removal therefrom of pine timber. Plaintiff claimed title to the land under a tax deed from the county of Shawano, based upon a sale for nonpayment of taxes assessed npon the land in 1872, by the town of Seneca in said county.

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

Action under the mill-dam law for past and future damages to plaintiff’s land from the fiowage thereof caused by defendants’ dam. The jury found for the plaintiff; that he was the owner of the land flowed; that he was entitled to recover $10 from defendants for fiowage after the commencement of the action, and fifteen dollars annually for future fiowage, or $200 in gross for the perpetual right to flow.

APPEA'L from the Circuit Court for Outagamie Countv. Action to recover damages for an alleged trespass by the defendant company upon the land of the plaintiff. The trespass charged is the taking and using of a public street on the plaintiff’s land, by the defendant, for its railway track.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Chippewa County</p> <p>The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Tbe case is sufficiently stated in tbe opinion. argued, among other things, that tbe superintendent, in denying to tbe parties a personal bearing on the appeal, exceeded bis jurisdiction. R. S., see. 497. Tbe law says be shall bear tbe appeal, and, in order to do so, be must bear, tbe parties and tbe subject matter. Not having done so, bis order reversing tbe order of the town board is void. Joint School District No. 7 v. Wolfe, 12 Wis., 685. 2.

Mandamus. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This is a demurrer to the return of the president of the board of regents of the university, made for and in behalf of said board, to an alternative writ of mandamus issued on the petition of Edward B. Priest.

This action was brought to correct the description in a quitclaim deed of conveyance, executed by the defendant to the plaintiff, purporting’ to convey to plaintiff certain real estate situate in the village of Waukesha.

The complaint alleges that the defendants wrongfully entered upon the premises and into the building of the plaintiff, then occupied and used by him as a printing office, and of which he was then and ever since has been lawfully possessed, and then and there violently assaulted the servants of the plaintiff and used abusive and insulting language to them and prevented them from engaging in the work of the plaintiff, and then and there broke up,-injured and destroyed the…

The amended complaint alleges that in February, 1868, the defendant, being the owner of a one-half interest in a vessel known as the Mechanic, contracted to sell to the plaintiff one-sixth of his interest therein, or a one-twelfth interest in such vessel,-for the consideration of $675; that the plaintiff paid the defendant $400 on account of such purchase, at or about the time when the contract was made, and $50 additional in July following, and it was agreed that the…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylob : “This action was brought to recover the amount alleged to he due upon two promissory notes made by the defendant Beaudin as principal, and indorsed by the defendant Roissy, payable to the plaintiff, dated April 23, 1879; payable, ore on September 10, 1879, and the other on July 10, 1880.

The plaintiff appealed from an order sustaining a joint demurrer by the defendants to the complaint as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The substance of the complaint will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries. In July, 3880, the plaintiff was passing along the south side of Grand avenue, in the city of Milwaukee, a little west of the Plankin-ton House, in his wágon, drawn by one horse. He was going east, and a young man with him was driving the horse.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County.</p> <p>The plaintiff appealed from an order, whose character is stated in the opinion.</p>

• Action for libel. Upon a former appeal in the cause, it was held-on demurrer that the publication in question was prima facie libelous. 47 Wis., 6H9.

Action for injuries to plaintiff’s person, alleged to 'have resulted from defendant’s gross negligence. The defendant appealed from an order overruling its general demurrer to the complaint. The substance of the complaint is stated in the opinion. 1. Where two employees of a company are in a different line of employment, and one is injured by the negligence of the other, the company is liable.

Action to recover an unpaid balance for certain merchandise sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The complaint contains an averment that, at the time the goods were sold and delivered, the defendants were copartners, doing business under the name, firm and style -of -Espenhain <& Bartels. The defendant Bartels answered separately. In his amended answer he denied most of the material allegations of the complaint.

Action for an alleged illegal ejection of tbe plaintiff from one of defendant’s trains, upon wbicb be was riding as a passenger. The grounds of tbe action and of tbe defense, and the errors alleged by the appellant, will sufficiently appear from tbe opinion. Tbe plaintiff bad a verdict for $1,000 damages; a new trial was refused; and defendant appealed from a judgment on tbe verdict.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: “This action was brought to recover a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff on a written contract for building a house for the defendant, and for extra work done on such house, not included in the contract, and to enforce a lien upon the building, etc., for the amount found due the plaintiff.

APPEALS from the Circuit- Court for Dodge County. In the first of these actions the plaintiff filed an affidavit for an attachment against the property of the defendant, which states in substance that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $600, as near as may be, over and above all legal set-offs, and that the same is due on a promissory note owned and held by the plaintiff, executed December 10, 1880, by- the defendant to the plaintiff, for $600 and interest…

Action by James Jenlcins, O. F. /Swift and J. H. Jenkins against G. W. Davis, David Jones and A. E. Crane, for the sum of $1,327.83, alleged to be due the plaintiffs from the defendants for “goods, wares and merchandise and personal property,” sold and. delivered by the former to the latter about December 21, 1872, at Oshkosh, in' this state.

Action for injuries to plaintiff’s intestate, causing his death. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Ca'ssoday:' “At the time of his death, the intestate was employed as brakeman on a regular freight train of the defendant, run between Oshkosh and Fort Howard, under the condüctorship of one Sykes, and had been in such employ for 'three|^ears.

County. The county board of supervisors of Winnebago county having rejected plaintiff’s claim to be paid a certain sum as a balance due him on his salary as treasurer of said county during the years 1879 and 1880; he appealed to the circuit court; and from a judgment there in favor of the defendant county, he appealed to this court. The grounds of the plaintiff’s claim will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Garnishment, in aid of an execution issued on a judgment recovered by the plaintiff company against Charles Miracle. The defendant, the executor of the estate of Joseph Miracle, was summoned, soon after he had qualified as such executor, and before the expiration of the time fixed by the proper coun ty court for presentation of claims against the estate of the testator. The testator by his will bequeathed $100 to Charles Miracle, the execution debtor.

Justice Tayloe: “This was an action to recover the value of a sewing machine owned by the plaintiff, and which, it was alleged, had been converted by the defendant. The action, was commenced in justice’s .court, and appealed to the county court of Winnebago county; and from the judgment in that court an appeal is taken to this court.

Action to recover certain personal property alleged to have been wrongfully taken by die defendant, as under sheriff of Fond du Lac county, on a writ of attachment issued in a suit in favor of John S. McDonald against George O. Trowbridge, a son of the plaintiff. The defendant, as such sheriff, justified on the ground that the property attached had been transferred by George O. to his mother, the plaintiff, with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors.

The complaint alleges that about the 1st of October, 1877, the plaintiff Sophia, Ladwig and the defendant entered into an agreement by which the latter was to work a farm belonging to the former in accordance with the terms and conditions of a written memorandum attached to the complaint; that defendant thereupon entered upon and worked said plaintiff’s farm, from year to year for about three years, in accordance with said terms and conditions, except that he had failed and…

The plaintiff appealed from a judgment in favor of the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion. They contended that the Black River Improvement Company is an improvement company, and nothing more. I.t had power to levy a tariff or toll upon logs driven down the stream.after it had spent a certain sum in improvements; but it had no power to drive logs, and no franchise to collect charges or tolls for driving.

Mandamus. This court having issued its alternative writ commanding the secretary of state to audit the relator’s salary as a state senator at the sum of $500, or show cause, etc., the attorney general moved to quash the writ. I. The legislature is the body which, -in all cases, must first pass upon the question whether it is one or more than one amendment, within the meaning of sec. 1, art. XII of the constitution, which is about to be submitted to the people.

APPEAL'from the Circuit Court for Juneau County! The pleadings are thus stated by Mr. Justice TayloR: “The cause of action in this case will be best stated by giving a copy of the complaint, which sets forth fully the facts ■ upon which a recovery is sought.

Action by James 8. Boardman and. Olla M. Campbell on, a policy of insurance against ñre issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff Campbell. Boardman claimed as mortgagee of the premises, to whom the policy was made payable as his interest might appear. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff; from which the defendant appealed.

The plaintiff in error was arrested and taken into custody, July 2, 1881, by the sheriff of Fond du Lac county, upon a ■ warrant duly… Held: the plaintiff in error sued out a writ of habeas corpus, upon a petition in due form, and caused the same to be served upon the sheriff, who made return thereto before the judge of the circuit court for Fond du Lac county, setting up the said warrant as the sole and only ground for the detention of the prisoner; and the plaintiff' in…

<p>Disbaeeinq- Attoeney. (1) Appealable order. (2) How attorney to- be notified of charges. (3) Court may act on its own motion.</p> <p>,1. An order of the circuit court forever disbarring an attorney and prohibiting him from practicing law in the courts of this state, held appealable under subd. 2, sec. 3069, R. S., as a final order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding.</p> <p>2. "Where the proceeding to disbar an attorney is by order to .show cause, the charges against him should clearly appear in the order itself, or in-some instrument appended thereto or (at least) on file; and even when the charges are to be supported by pleadings filed by such attorney, the charges themselves should be distinctly specified.</p> <p>3. The circuit court may properly, on its own motion, require an attorney to show cause why he should not be disbarred, when pleadings filed by him appear to require an investigation of that character.</p>

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Brown County.</p> <p>Defendants moved to modify the judgment for costs of this court.</p>

Action to recover the price of 590 flour barrels, alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, April 5,1880, amounting to $212. It appears that the plaintiff, with the consent of the defendant, had stored in a building of the latter, known as the “ old mill,” that number of barrels at his own risk.

Action to recover damages for false representations made by defendant to the plaintiff in the sale of a note and mortgage. On the trial, defendant’s objection to the admission of any evidence under the complaint, on the. ground that it did not state a cause of action, was overruled. Eroma judgment entered in favor of the defendant for costs, etc., the plaintiff appealed.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice-TAXLOR: “ This action was brought to recover the money paid to de fendant'for a note and mortgage purchased from him by the plaintiff, upon the ground of fraud and misrepresentation onj defendant’s part, in the sale thereof.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice. Cassoday: “The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant, by an instrument in writing, appointed the plaintiff as his agent for the sale and renting of a house and-lot here in question, and also of another house and lot, at prices named, but expressly stipulated that in case the defendant found 1ns own customer the plaintiff should have no fee.

In May,- 1S66, J. J. Lefevre died seized of a large part |of block 3 in the village of Rosendale, Fond du Lac county, in this state; and he left surviving him his widow (who in 1872 married one Edward Durkee, and appears as plaintiff in this action under the name of Hattie A. Divrlceé), and two chil- ■ dren, William Lefevre and a daughter, who appears as defendant in this action under the name of Oora D. Feíton.

The complaint alleged that, in the taxes imposed upon certain property in the defendant city, in 1878, returned delinquent by the city to the county treasurer, and credited to the former, there was included a special assessment for grading, charged against certain lots, amounting to $362.60; that this amount was charged back to the city by order of the county hoard of supervisors, and apportioned to the city in 1880; and that the city refused to pay the same.

<p>Divorce. Parties defendant to divorce suit:</p> <p>In a divorce suit by the wife, an order refusing to allow an amendment of the complaint making a third person a defendant on the ground that the principal defendant had conveyed to him a part of his real estate with intent on the part of both to defraud plaintiff of a proper provision for her support, etc., is affirmed because it is not shown that there was any intention to prejudice plaintiff's rights, or that they will be prejudiced, in fact, by the conveyance. Damon v. Damon, 28 Wis., 510, distinguished.</p>

Action upon a contract of guaranty executed by Susannah Bowles and others, and to foreclose a mortgage of land executed by Susannah Bowles to secure performance of such contract of guaranty. From a judgment in favor of said defendant Susannah Bowles, the plaintiff appealed.

Action on a policy of insurance. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: , “On the afternoon of May 23, 1878, a heavy, dark thunder ■storm, giving evidences of considerable electric discharges along the lower edge, was seen from Mineral Point, stretching along the northern horizon, and apparently eight, ten or twelve miles from the city.

In September, 1877, Samuel H. Scale3 died in La Fayette county, leaving surviving him his widow and six children, his only heirs-at-law.

APPEAL fi’om the Circuit Court for La, Fayette County. Ejectment, to recover the S. E. -J- of the N. E. f of section 27, township 2, range 3 east, in the county of La Fayette. Complaint in the usual fortn.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: “This was an action fo.r a trespass upon.real estate, and for taking and removing a fence therefrom. The answer was a general denial, and that the locus vn quo was owned in fee by the defendant. The whole contention in the case depends upon where the east line of the defendant’s land is located.

■ APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Grant County. The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment in favor of the defendant. The case is stated in the opinion.

The defendants, Devendorf and Penn, being in partnership and doing: business as merchants at Platteville. dissolved Apri] 9, 1877; Devendorf purchasing of Penn the undivided one-half of the building wherein they were then doing business, for $3,000, which was secured to be paid by Devendorf assuming $1,000 of Penn’s share of the incumbrances on the building, and giving Penn his notes for $2,000, secured by mortgage oh the undivided one-half of the store building.

This case was argued with the foregoing, and by the same counsel, being similar in its history in the court below, and having come here on appeal from a similar order.

Action to recover the sum of $20.72, with interest, for medical attendance and other relief furnished by the plaintiff towm in September*, 1878, to Mrs. Sarah Enyart and her three infant children, who are alleged to have been paupers residing and having a settlement in the defendant town, and to have been found in a destitute and suffering condition in the plaintiff town. A former appeal herein is reported in 51 Wis., 185-196..

Ejectment, to recover the possession of real property in the city of La Crosse. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylok : “ The plaintiff claims title to a tract of land, containing about 13J acres, described in the complaint as the S. ‡- of the S. W. J of the hi. W. J of sec. 5 of township 15 north, range 7 wést, and known as lot 4 of Rublee & G-illett’s addition to the city of La Crosse.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ciarle County.</p> <p>The defendant appealed from an order, the nature of which will sufficiently appear from the opinion.</p>

Action to recover the price of eight tons of hay alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The answer is a general denial. The case is stated in the opinion. Defendant appealed from a judgment against him for the amount of the plaintiff’s demand.

Action for injuries to the plaintiff’s person, and to his team, wagon, etc., which injuries are alleged to have occurred on the 17th of January, 1880, from the insufficiency or want of repair of a certain bridge in the defendant town, on the road between Chippewa Falls and Colby, alleged to have been laid out, established and opened in pursuance of ch. 159, Taws of 1879. Plaintiff had a verdict for $2,500; and from a judgment . thereon the defendant town appealed. 1.

<p>Paetnbhship. (1) When notice to one partner binds all.</p> <p>Reversal oe Judgment: (2) For improper remarks of attorney.</p> <p>1. Where timber is purchased by a firm, prior notice to one member of the firm that it was cut from land not belonging to the proposed vendor, is notice to all the partners, so as to subject them all to the .rule of damages prescribed in such cases by sec. 4269, R. S.</p> <p>2. A judgment will not be reversed for improper remarks made by the respondent’s attorney to the jury, where there is no reason to believe that the verdict was influenced by them to the appellant’s injury.</p>

<p>APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for diario County.</p> <p>The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Action for the killing of plaintiff’s horses by a train of cars belonging to and run by the defendant on the Green Bay & Minnesota railroad. The complaint alleges that the horses had strayed upon said road by reason of the failure of' the Green Bay & Minnesota Railway Company, and of the defendant, to build and maintain good and sufficient fences, as by law required, on both sides of said railroad; and it also alleges negligence in running the train.

.The defendant MoKnight appealed from an order overruling his general demurrer to the complaint. The substance of the complaint is stated in the opinion.

Aaron Houghton and Polly, his wife, having separated, and having mutually agreed that such' separation should be permanent, an agreement under seal was… Held: however, that snch trustee was not necessary to the validity of the contract, that the husband might contract directly with his wife for her separate support, and would in such case be regarded as trustee of the sum to be paid for the benefit of the wife, and that the trust thus created would be enforced in equity.

In October, 1878, the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendants Park and Bigler 'on au indebtedness due him-from the firm of Parks, Homsted & Co., which firm consisted of said defendants' and one Homsted. At the time .of the commencement of the action, in September, 1877, the respondent McOulloch was summoned as garnishee of Parks and Big-ler, and the trial of the issue on his liability as such garnishee, in November, 1879, resulted in a judgment in his favor.

On the 22d of November, 1873, the defendant Ogden was indebted to one R. R. Roberts upon a store account in the sum of about $1,300, to secure the payment of which, together with about $700 thereafter to. be advanced to him by R. R. Roberts, Ogden executed the note and mortgage in suit, for $2,000, on that day, and the same were taken by R. R. Roberts in the name of his daughter, Mrs. Miles, the mortgagee and the plaintiff in this action; and the amount of the note and…

Action to remove a cloud from plaintiff’s title to certain lands, by cancelling tax certificates issued upon' sales of said lands in 1875 and 1876, for the taxes of 1874 and 1875, upon the ground that the assessments of property for taxation for the years last named, in the towns in which plaintiff’s lands were situate, were void.

said lands in 1877, Í87S and 1879, each of said sales being for the non-payment of taxes of the preceding year; the ground alleged for such relief being that the assessments of property for taxation for the years 1876, 1877 and 1878, in the several towns in which said lands were situate, were void. The answer alleged, among other things, that the action was not commenced within the time limited by ch. 334, Laws of 1878.

The plaintiff, having recovered judgment against the defendant Allen, and having issued execution thereon, proceeded by garnishment against Campbell in aid of his'execution to reach a certain promissory note in his hands belonging to Allen. Both the defendant-and the garnishee answered that the note was exempt from seizure on execution. Issue was taken on these answers.

The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayjlob: “This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage. The complaint was in the usual form, and, among other things, alleged 'that the mortgagor, 8.

The action was commenced by service of the summons and affidavit for garnishment upon the garnishee, the principal defendant, Alpheus- Tucker, not being found. The garnishee answered, alleging that he had under his control the sum of $300, belonging to said defendant, which he had received in settlement of certain actions upon policies of insurance in favor of such defendant and of Clara E. Tucker, his wife, and that of said amount Clara E. Tucker claimed the sum of $220.

Action for the conversion of certain lumber. The answer, in substance, alleges that the lumber was manufactured by the defendants under a contract with the Mihills Manufacturing Company, hut was never estimated, delivered or paid for according to the contract; and that, after due demand on the company to fulfill its contract, its failure to comply, and due notice to the plaintiff, who had acquired the rights of the company in relation to the lumber, the defendants sold the…

Oroix County. About October 1, 1879, the plaintiff, who was then a milliner and dressmaker, about fifty-two or fifty-three years of age, residing at the village of Hammond, a station on the defendant’s railway between St. Paul and Elroy, traveled as a passenger on one of the defendant’s passenger trains from St. Paul to Hammond.

The action was to recover damages for the entire failure of the defendant to fulfill a contract in writing entered into by the parties for the sale and purchase of two cargoes of a kind of lumber known as “deals.” The contract was as follows: “It is this day, the 5th day of February, 1878, mutually agreed between the Ashland Lmnber Company, of Ashland, Wisconsin, and McRae “ One cargo to be ready for shipment on or before the 1st of July next; second cargo to be ready for…

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dane County.</p> <p>Defendants appealed from a judgment in favorof the plaintiffs. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

The answering defendants were Margaret Williams, administratrix with the will annexed of Robert Williams, and Betilah Van Bv/ren, the holder of a prior mortgage. The mortgagors did not answer.

• APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Saule County. The defendant Sumner appealed from so much of a judgment of divorce against him as required him to pay $400 suit money.

Action to recover for the board and lodging of ope Caroline Kooch, alleged to be a pauper for whose maintenance the defendant town is chargeable.

The defendant, Bronson Pettíbone, being a merchant at Dubuque, Iowa, and indebted to the plaintiff, Mehlhop, in the sum of about $1,500, and having an undivided two-thirds interest in 160 acres of land in Waukesha county, Wisconsin, conveyed-the same to his wife, Eveline, March 29, 1879, and at the same time took from her a deed - of the homestead in Dubuque, on which they then resided, and had resided for many years, and which was of the value of $2,700.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe : “ The plaintiff and the principal defendant in this action are corporations; the first organized under a special law of the state, and the second under a general law — chapter 144, Laws of 1872.

The case is thus stalled by Mr. Justice Cassoday: The plaintiff’s application for the policy upon which this suit is brought, contained the following questions and answers: “ Question 14. What title has applicant to these premises? Answer. Fee-simple title. Q. 15. How many acres of land do you own? A. One hundred and twenty acres. Q. IT. Is your property incumbered? By and to what amount?