Volume 56 — Wisconsin Reports

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylob : “ This action was commenced in a justice’s court to recover the value of about 180 bushels of wheat which the x plaintiff alleges he sold and delivered to' the defendants some time in February, 1878.

<p>FORECLOSURE oe Mortgage. Filing notice of lis pendens.</p> <p>A notice of the pendency of an action to foreclose a mortgage, though duly filed, is inoperative before the filing of the complaint: and judgment in the action cannot be entered until twenty days after the complaint is filed.</p>

Action, commenced in justice’s court, for the wrongful taking and conversion of a span of horses. The plaintiff had a judgment and the defendant appealed therefrom to the circuit court. The facts are stated in the opinion. At the close of the testimony a motion for a nonsuit was granted, and the plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing the complaint.

Action to recover damages for the breach of the following written contract: “Be it known that I, John Gardner, of Spencer, Wisconsin, party of the first part, and McDonald db Stewart, of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, party of the second part, that I, John Ga/rdner, sell and guarantee to deliver on board of cars at this place, when dry and in good condition to ship, all the good lumber to he cut from six or seven hundred thousand feet of choice, large white pine growing amongst…

Action for the foreclosure of tax certificates. The complaint alleges the legal sale of certain lands for unpaid taxes, the issue of the certificates on such sale, the assignment of such certificates to and their present ownership by the plaintiff, and the ownership of the lands by the defendant.

Tiie complaint alleges that for a valuable consideration the firm of Stumpf, Gage & Eckels assigned to the plaintiff an interest to the amount of $1,000 in a chattel mortgage given by Clin & Harvey to that firm, to secure a debt on which there was unpaid a larger sum. The mortgaged property consisted of a building (presumably personal property), and a boiler and certain machinery therein.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylob : “ This action was brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of the obstruction of the Big Plover river, which is alleged and shown to be a navigable river for the purpose of floating logs, timber, and lumber down the same, and which it is alleged the defendants obstructed by keeping and maintaining a large quantity of saw-logs in the channel thereof, thereby preventing the plaintiffs from…

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs “are, and for several years past have been, the owners ” of certain lands situated in Lincoln county and liable to taxation therein; that the defendant Swmehamt is the county treasurer of said county and as such “is preparing his notice of sale of lands in said county for the taxes, interest and charges pretended to be due thereon for the year 1881, and has threatened and does now threaten that he will, on the first Monday in April,…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ The complaint contains two counts. One for wrongfully and unlawfully obstructing the Little Wolf river, a public navigable stream, by the dam and booms of the defendants, and thereby hindering and delaying, for the period of thirty-one days, the logs of the plaintiff being floated down said river, to the special damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $300.

On the 27th of April, 1882, the county of Dodge applied to the said board for relief from the charge of supporting one George Carr, an insane person confined in the northern hospital for the insane, upon the ground that said Carr ivas not, at the time of becoming insane or of being so confined, a resident of Dodge county, but was a resident of Wood county.1 The county of Wood filed with the board its objections to such application, in the nature of demurrer and answer, upon…

The action is upon a draft for $800, drawn by one 0. Warfield upon the defendants, payable to the order of the plaintiff, and dated Monroe, Wisconsin, February 5, 1881. The plaintiff bank discounted the draft and duly presented it to the defendants for payment. The defendants refused to pay the same, and it was duly protested for nonpayment.

The action is founded upon a policy of insurance against fire, written by the defendant company, upon a certain distillery of the plaintiffs, which was afterwards burned. The case was here on a former appeal. 53 Wis., 129.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Wood County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Tbe facts are stated, in tbe opinion. Tbe instructions there referred to were as follows: 1. “ But it is further claimed by tbe plaintiff that at the time of their settlement and occupancy of their respective farms this old line or survey was known to both the plaintiff and defendant; that they cleared their farms up to it; that they made their fences in reference to it, and put on their improvements and occupied it for the purpose of cultivation thereafter; that the highway…

xlPPEALS from the Circuit Court for Wcmpaca County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This case was commenced in 1877. It was here on a former appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the relation and a motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus. 48 Wis., 549. The defendants haying thereafter made return to the writ, the relator moved to strike out certain designated portions of the same.

This is an appeal from an order sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe : “ This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court making School District No. 3 of the Town of Lmcóbn a defendant to the action. The action is brought to foreclose a mortgage given by Morrison and. his wife to the appellant to secure the payment of $600, borrowed money.

Garnishment. The garnishee, Adams, answered denying all liability but admitting that he had moneys in his hands collected by him, as… Held: further, that the judgments rendered in the justice’s court in favor of Henry W. King contended, inter alia, that the judgment in the justice’s court in favor of Henry W. King & Co. was void because rendered for a larger amount than that claimed in the published notice to the defendant. / This notice does not appear in the record,…

The cause was before this court on a former appeal, and is reported in 53 Wis., 574. From the account of the administrator of the estate of Patrick Carey, the circuit court found that the net product of the sale of the eighty acres not included in the homestead was $777.65 — that being the amount of said estate left for the payment of creditors, after the payment of funeral expenses, expenses of administration and the compensation and commissions of the administrator.

The case is thus stated, by Mr. Justice Tayloe: ‘£ This is an appeal from an order made after judgment. The judgment was rendered upon an award made upon a submission to arbitration under the provisions of ch. 153, R. S. 1878. The submission provided that when the award should be made, judgment should be entered thereon in the circuit court of Waupaca county. The award was made August 18, 1880, and filed with the clerk of said circuit court August 20, 1880.

Action, under cb. 203, Laws of 1881, to determine the rights of the respective parties in a water power. The substance of the complaint, so far as material on this appeal, will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

Oroix County. It is alleged in the first count of the complaint that on February 10, 1875, there existed, and had for a long time theretofore existed, a contract of marriage between the defendant and the plaintiff Bertha (then Bertha Sunter), and that in consideration that she released him from said contract and the obligations thereof the defendant, on the day aforesaid, made and delivered to her a promise or agreement in writing whereby he promised to pay her $3,000 for…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloe: ' “ This action is brought to recover of the city of Eau Claire money paid to it by the plaintiffs in discharge of an alleged illegal tax levied and assessed against them.

Action for injuries to lands and crops by flowage resulting from the obstruction of the Chippewa river by means of a dam erected and maintained by the defendant city. It is further alleged that grain and hay in the plaintiff’s granary and barn, and provisions in his cellar, were destroyed, and that' he incurred expense in removing hay and grain from the submerged buildings and in replacing the same.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassodat: “ This action was brought in justice’s court for the breach of an alleged warranty on the sale of a reaper. On the trial the justice rendered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, but filed no affidavit that his claim exceeded $15 in amount.

The plaintiff sued out of the circuit court a writ of attachment against the property of the defendant. The defendant interposed a traverse of the affidavit for the writ. The issue made by the traverse was afterwards tried and found for the defendant.

The case is stated in the opinion. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

APPEA.L from the Circuit Court for Dane County. Action for the cancellation of a mortgage and to have the same declared to be fully satisfied. The facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing the complaint.

Action to set aside, on the ground of fraud, a judgment of divorce in favor of the defendant Goolt, rendered in the circuit court for Shiawassee county, Michigan, and for a divorce and alimony. The defendant Brewer was made a party on the ground that a lease and mortgage executed to him by the principal defendant were in fraud of plaintiff’s rights, and the prayer of the complaint is, among other things, that such lease and mortgage be set aside and declared void.

Tbe action is upon a policy of insurance made by tbe defendant company to tbe plaintiff, insuring bim in tbe following sums and on tbe following described property against loss or damage by fire: On bis dwelling bouse, $500; on bousebold furniture, including beds and bedding therein, $100; on provisions therein, $50; and on wearing apparel therein, $100. Tbe policy covered other property, but no claim is made in respect thereto, and the same need not be specified.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tatloe: This case was before this court on an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint, and upon such appeal it was held the complaint stated a cause of .action. 53 Wis., 657. The cause was remitted and the defendant answered. A trial was had upon the merits, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered, and the defendant again appeals.

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

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ The plaintiff Elizabeth fell upon a sidewalk in the city of Fond du Lac, and she and her husband bring this suit to recover damages therefor. Upon the trial the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs of $2,500.

This is the third appeal in this case. The reports of the case on the former appeals will be found in 45 Wis., 23, and 49 Wis., 601. Held: that the plat should have controlling weight in construing the deeds.” This ruling worked a reversal of the judgment, the trial judge having directed a verdict for the defendants, thus disregarding the plat.

Mandatos. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Oassoday : “ This is a demurrer to the petition of the relator for a writ of mandamus to compel the state treasurer to issue to the relator a license to operate its railroad, and also separate licenses to operate each of the other railroads mentioned in the petition, respectively.

Action against the inspectors of an election for town officers in the town of Depere to recover damages for their wrongful and unlawful refusal to permit the plaintiff to vote at such election. A demurrer to the complaint upon the ground, among others, that the facts stated did not constitute a cause of action was sustained, and from the order sustaining the same the plaintiff appealed.

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

Action to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant’s servants. The answer alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The facts are thus stated by.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Shawano County.</p> <p>The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

■ Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. Several grounds of demurrer were assigned, but the only ground argued or considered is that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

<p> Assignment of tax certificates. </p> <p>An indorsement of the name and official' character of a county clerk impressed by him upon a tax certificate by means of a stamp, with intent to assign such certificate, is a valid assignment thereof, under a statute (B. S., sec. 1140) which authorized the clerk to assign tax certificates “by writing his name in blank on the back thereof, . . . with his official character added.” Dreutzer v. Smith, post, p. 292.</p>

The case is stated in the opinion. The affidavit of non-occupancy therein referred to was as follows, excepting the description of the land, signature and jurat: “ State of Wisconsin, County of Door — ss: “Joseph Smith, of the town of Jacksonport, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the lots and pieces or parcels of land enumerated and described below are not now, and have not been within the last six months, in the possession or occupancy of any person for the…

Ejectment to recover certain lots in the village of Sturgeon Bay, in Door county. Omitting everything not material to the question considered by this court, the case is briefly as follows: In 1863 one Bartlett, who held the legal title to the lots in controversy, conveyed the same by deed of quitclaim, absolute on its face, to one Harris.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Oassoday: “ This is an action to recover back money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in 1875 for certain tax certificates held by the latter on certain lands in Door county, which certificates the defendant claimed to own and purported to. sell to the plaintiff, but which it is claimed the defendant did not and could not own, and did not and could not sell.

The nature of the action will sufficiently appear from the opinion.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “ A petition was duly filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit' court for Outagamie county for the condemnation for railway purposes, under ch. 87, R. S., of lot two, in block one, in the fourth ward of Appleton (except a piece described by metes and bounds), and alleged the same to belong to the plaintiff, and the necessary steps intermediate to its filing and the report of the commissioners were duly had and taken.

Action to recover for personal injuries sustained by reason of the wrongful and negligent acts of the defendant. The facts are stated in the opinion. The' plaintiff’s attorneys were permitted to testify, upon the trial, against defendant’s objection, as to the date at which they were retained in the action and as to the value of their services rendered before the execution by the plaintiff of the release of her claim.

Action to recover for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from a -judgment of nonsuit.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “ This is an action brought by the owner of the land for the cancellation, and having declared null and void, certain tax certificates, and to restrain the county clerk from advertising the lots described for tax deeds, and for a perpetual injunction from executing tax deeds to any person or persons on said tax certificates.

The railway of the defendant runs through the plaintiffs farm. In October, 1818, a mule and some horses of the plaintiff escaped from his pasture adjoining the railway track, through a defective gate in the railway fence, and went upon the track, where they were run over by a passing locomotive and train. The mule was killed and some of the horses were injured. This action is to recover damages therefor. It is not disputed that the gate was out of repair.

The substance of the pleadings will appear from the opinion.

The cáse is sufficiently stated in tbe opinion. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the circuit court. - There was -no adjournment in this case, but .judgment was rendered and entered in the docket on the same day that the verdict was rendered. This is just what is meant by the word “ forthwith.” The legal meaning of that word is the same as instcmter; and instanter means during the day or within the day. Bouvier’s Law Diet.; Wearne v. Smith, 32 Wis., 415.

The case is thus stated, by Mr. Justice Taylob : “ This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage which, at the time the action was commenced, was owned by Scott and Whorton in equal shares. It was originally given to and owned by Scott, and he sold one half of the debt and mortgage to Whorton.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “ This is an action to recover damages for personal injury received bj^ reason of an alleged defect in the street at the intersection of Butler, King, and Wilson streets, in the defendant city. Butler street runs into Wilson street from the northwest, and is at right angles with it. The latter runs southwest from the Northwestern depot in the city, and is the street running parallel with and nearest to Third lake.

This action was brought to set aside a sheriff’s certificate of sale on execution against the plaintiff of certain land, which certificate was issued to the defendants, and to compel the defendants to release such land to the plaintiff. The foundation of the action is the claim that the land thus sold is part and parcel of plaintiff’s homestead, and hence not liable to be sold on execution against him.

Action for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The case is stated in the opinion.

The plaintiff, George F. Blake, is the son of the defendants Adamson and Elizabeth Blake, and the brother of the defendant O. M. Blake. In April, 1866, a parol agreement was made between the plaintiff and his father and mother that the latter should convey to the plaintiff an undivided one half of a farm consisting of four adjoining forty-acre tracts, in the county of Wood, owned by Alanson, and on which he and his wife resided.

<p>Findings of Fact: When not disturbed.</p> <p>The findings of the trial court or a referee, upon pure questions of fact, will not be disturbed unless the record shows them to be clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.</p>

<p>APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Dodge County.</p> <p>The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. The defendant Sisson appealed from the judgment.</p>

The plaintiff owns a lot of land in the town of Waukesha, containing about an acre and a half, on which is his dwelling-house and appurtenances. Held: 2 Sim. (N. S.), 133 ; Davis v. Sawyer, 15 Cent. L. J., 251. From manufacture of steam boilers: Fish v. Dodge, 4 Denio, 311. From the playing by a band of musicians: Walker v. Brewster, L. B., 5 Eq. Cas., 25. From the stamping of horses in a stable: Dargan v. Waddill, 9 Ired. (N. C.), 244.

MANDAMUS to the Secretary of State. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This is a motion to discharge a rule to show cause, and to quash an application to this court for a peremptory writ of mandamus, for the reason that the relation, fails to state facts sufficient to entitle the relator to such writ.

• APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Washington County. The case is stated in the opinion. The fourth, fifth and sixth instructions therein referred to, asked by the plaintiff, were as follows: “4: That the travel over said supposed highway by parties who went to the premises of Pfeil and Roll to draw gravel, was not a public use such as required by the law to make it a public highway. 5.

Replevin for a cow. The action was commenced in justice’s court. The defendant was a brother of the plaintiff, and claimed title to the cow under a sale to him by his father of all of the real estate, live-stock, etc., of the latter.

Action commenced in justice’s court to recover the sum of $188.50. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the cause was tried before a referee. The facts are thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ The plaintiff was the secretary, and the defendant was the treasurer, of the Germantown Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Company, and had been such officers for several years prior to the time in question.

This action was brought to set aside and cancel certain conveyances of land. It appears from the pleadings and evidence that in 1876 the plaintiff, Wanoy Dailey, who was then between seventy-five and eighty years of age, owned and resided upon forty acres of land in Washington county. Two of her children resided with her. These were Jane, then about thirty-five years of age and unmarried, and John, ■who was imbecile.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayjloe: “ This action was commenced in justice’s court.

<p> (1) Contract of service construed: Entire contract. (3) Court and jury. </p> <p>1. By a certain contract the plaintiff’s son was to work for defendant six months for $16 per month. At the end of four months the son left the defendant’s service solely on the ground that the defendant refused to pay him for such four months, or from month to month. H'eld, that the contract was an entirety, that the money was to be paid only at the end of the six months, and that there could be no recovery of compensation for the partial performance.</p> <p>3. Such contract being shown by the plaintiff’s own testimony, it was the duty of the court to construe it, and it was error to submit to the jury the question whether the contract was an entirety, or whether the money was due monthly, or at the end of the six months.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This is an action for personal injury happening to the plaintiff, January 10, 1880, by reason of a defective sidewalk in Beaver Dam. Issue was joined by service of an answer, September 26, 1881, and the cause was noticed for trial and placed upon the calendar of the term commencing December 6, 1881, on which day the cause was set down for trial January 4, 1882.

The respective parties are the owners of adjoining lands, between which is a line fence. The portion to be kept in repair by each of them was agreed upon many years ago. Each party uses his land adjoining such fence as a pasture. Neither of them has maintained a lawful line fence. The pasture of plaintiff is open to a highway which abuts it on one side.

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Ozaukee County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Ooui't for Ozaukee County.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “ This is an action to recover damages accruing to the plaintiffs between September 11, 1873, and January 1, 1878, by reason of the maintenance of a tannery, alleged to have been a nuisance, by the defendants, adjacent to the water-cure establishment of the plaintiffs in Kenosha, and for the abatement of such nuisance.

The action is ejectment, to recover certain lands in Iienosha county. The complaint is in the statutory form. The answer is (1) a general denial; (2) an allegation that the defendants are the owners in fee of the lands claimed; and (3) a counterclaim for the value of permanent improvements made upon the premises by the defendants. The plaintiff, George Delong, is the father of James U. Delong, the defendant husband, and on October 10, 1874, was the owner of the lands claimed.

Ejectment. The answer, after a general denial of each material allegation of the complaint, for a second defense, “ alleges and objects that the action of the plaintiffs was not commenced within the period of time prescribed and limited for the commencement thereof in and by the statutes of the state of Wisconsin in such case made and provided, and that he does and shall insist upon said statutes in bar of the right of the plaintiffs and each of them to maintain this…

The facts are stated in. .tbe opinion. JL. The records import absolute verity and cannot be impeached. Peterson v. State, 45- -Wis., 535; Gallon v. Stern-berg, 38 id., 539; Healy v. Kneeland, 48 id., 497; Gassiday v. Millerick, 52 id., 379. Under Eule I, Circuit Court Eules, the indorsement, “These instructions filed April 6, 1882,” excludes every possible inference of the exceptions being in the paper at the date of filing.

Ejectment. The complaint is in the usual form. The substance of the answer is stated in the opinion.

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. The circuit court found that the defendants had not encroached upon the street as designated on the plat. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing the complaint.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “This is an appeal from a judgment affirming certain special assessments of benefits made upon the appellant’s lands by the common council of the city on account of the contemplated construction of certain lake-shore protections therein.

The plaintiff agreed to sell a crop of tobacco raised by him in 1881 to the defendants, who are partners and dealers in tobacco in the city of New York. The agreement is embraced in two written instruments, of which the following are copies: “AlbioN, September 12, 1881. “ I have this day sold to Joseph Mayer’s Sons, city of New York, my lot of tobacco, consisting of about eight and a half acres Spanish, at twelve cents per pound. Paid on two crops, $300.

Prosper A. Pierce died testate March 18,1875. His will was duly proved, and the appellant, Stephen 0. Pieree, qualified as sole executor. On an accounting in the county court in August, 1880, there was found in the hands of the executor belonging to said estate (the debts against the estate all having been paid) the sum of $715.34, of which $331.34 was personal estate, and the remaining $384 was rent from the farm mentioned in the will of the deceased.

In bastardy proceedings the defendant was found guilty, and to review the judgment entered on such verdict sued out a writ of error. The facts will appear from the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that the statute which provides that the justice shall take the complaint in writing, “ and shall thereupon issue his warrant,” etc., requires the warrant to be issued immediately. R. S. 1858, ch. 37, sec. 1; R. S., sec. 1530; “Webster’s, Worcester’s and Johnson’s Dictionaries.

EXCEPTIONS from the Circuit Court for Rock County. The complaint, omitting the caption, etc., was as follows: “Webster H. Pease, of said county, being first duly sworn and examined on oath, by and before David L. Mills, a justice of the peace of said county, makes complaint and says that William Tall did on the 9th day of November, A. D. 1880, at the town of Fulton in said county, unlawfully vend, sell, deal and traffic in, to, and with Stephen Saxby, J. Cord-ner, and C. C.…

The plaintiff in error was convicted of an assault and battery. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. What is personal service ? See sec. 2820, R. S.; Moyer v. Cook, 12 Wis., 335; Wade on Notice, 5T0, secs. 1341-2. This notice is in the nature of a process and the proceeding is an exercise of the right of eminent domain, and the provisions of the statute must be strictly complied with.

This is a proceeding- under the bastardy act. The prose-cutrix is one Margaret Little. On July 18, 1879, she made complaint, in writing, on oath that she was then pregnant with a child, which, if born alive, would be a bastard, and charged therein that the plaintiff in error is the father of such child. He was thereupon arrested, and held to answer the charge in the -circuit court. A trial in that court resulted in a verdict of guilty.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday : “ The plaintiff, being the original owner of the land in question, brings this action to set aside each of several tax deeds thereon, and under which the defendant claims title, and each of which is alleged as a separate cause of action, and which deeds were issued upon the several assessments, levies, and sales for taxes, and recorded, as follows: First, a tax deed issued April 28, 1880, on the assessment and levy of 1814,…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ The facts in this case are, in substance and effect, the same as in the case between the same parties, and in which the opinion is filed herewith [see ante, p. 590], and hence need not be repeated, except in the following particulars, as, in effect, stated by the plaintiff’s attorney, to wit; “ The land covered by the tax deeds, under which the defendant claims title, was never in the town of Jenny, but was in that part of…

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This action is brought to set aside alleged taxes attempted to be imposed on the lands of the plaintiff in Langlade county in the year 1881. Two grounds are charged in the complaint as the basis of the action.

The facts are stated in the opinion. Tbe note in suit was in the form, “ I promise to pay,” etc. The circuit court directed a verdict for the defendant, Silas Barber, and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff appealed. They argued, inter alia, that the allowance of the claim, though partaking of many of the features of a judgment, is not in a'strict sense a judgment. Zouis v. Triseony, 58 Cal., 305.

The action was commenced in 1874. The report of a former appeal will be found in 43 Wis., 433.

Action by the administrators of George Challoner, deceased, to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The complaint alleged that the defendants were the owners of the premises in question, the defendant Bouck holding the title thereto for the use of himself and the defendant Felker. The answer of the defendant Felker merely alleged certain partial payments, and prayed credit therefor.

Action on a promissory note in tbe usual form, in and by which the defendant, for value received, promised to pay to the order of the University of Chicago $1,000 ten years after date, with seven per cent, interest. The note bears date August 20, 1869.

Action to recover compensation for services as a member of the board of review of the defendant city, rendered by the plaintiff while he was city clerk of said city. Prom an order sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint the plaintiff appealed.

Action against the Town of Winneconne and the President a/nd Trustees of the Tillage of Winneconne, to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate. The substance of the complaint is stated in the opinion.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This action is to recover for services rendered by the minor son of the plaintiff, under a special contract made by the defendants with the plaintiff, whereby it was agreed that the son should work for the defendants for the period of seven months from April 8, 1881, for the sum of $14 per month. A failure of such performance is alleged in the complaint and admitted upon the trial.

Action upon an. account for goods sold and services rendered.

In 1881 the plaintiffs, Badger and Gould, were partners in the business of manufacturing and selling lumber, and the plaintiff Gould at the same time carried on a planing-mill and sash and door manufactory. The defendant ordered building materials of Gould, not knowing that Badger was his partner. The materials were furnished pursuant to the order, and were used by the defendant in the construction of a building in the city of Oshkosh.

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Taylor: “ This action was brought to recover the price of a volume of the History of Northern Wisconsin, published by the plaintiff. The action was brought in justice’s court. The plaintiff had judgment for $12.50, the alleged price of the book, and for costs.