Volume 58 — Iowa Reports

District Oourt. Action upon a promissory note purporting to be executed by the defendant and one Triplett. The defendant denies the execution of the note upon his part. There was a trial by jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

Action of forcible entry and detainer, brought before a justice of tbe peace, to recover tbe possession of a lot in tbe city of Dubuque. Upon an appeal to tbe Circuit Court a verdict and judgment were bad for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

This is an action of quo warra/nto, commenced in April, 1879, to determine the right of the relator to the office of subdirector, in subdistrict number 5, in the district township of Washington, in Webster county. The petition asks that the defendant be excluded from the office, and that the relator be declared the lawful subdirector of said subdistrict. The cause not being reached for trial at the August, 1879, term, was continued.

<p> Appeal from, Black Hawk District Court. </p> <p>Action in chancery to set aside certain deeds of real estate and assignments of two judgments made by defendant, Samuel Berry, to Ezra S. Newton, which are alleged to have been made to defraud plaintiff, who is a creditor of Berry, by hindering and preventing him from enforcing certain judgments held by him against Berry. Newton and his wife and the wife of Berry are joined as defendants in the action. There was a decree granting the relief prayed for in the petition. Defendants appeal.</p>

<p> Appeal from Dubuque Circuit Court. </p> <p>Action upon a policy of insurance. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.</p>

Appeal from Dubuque District Court. Action upon, a policy of insurance. There was a verdict and judgment in the District Court for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

<p> Appeal from Delaware Circuit Court. </p> <p>James Heath died September 19, 1868, intestate, and soon thereafter F. B. Doolittle was appointed administrator of his estate. At the time of his death, Heath was a member of the partnership of Heath & G-alpin, at Delhi, Delaware county, which firm had been for some time engaged in selling goods. At the time of Heath’s death there was the usual stock of goods on hand, and a large amount of notes and accounts outstanding, for goods previously sold. The partnership was also largely indebted, the debts being mostly to wholesale merchants for goods purchased by the firm. There were some individual assets of the deceased, and these were inventoried and charged to the administrator. The one-half interest in the firm was also inventoried and appraised, and a statement of the indebtedness of the firm was made. Upon an application made for that purpose, the court directed and ordered that the administrator should continue the partnership business, and subsequent orders were made by which the firm continued in business up to June 1871, when by a decree of the District Court, upon the application of Galpin, the surviving partner, the partnership was declared dissolved, and the rights of the parties thereto were determined by a referee appointed by the court. Previous to this, however, the administrator had made several progressive reports of his doings as administrator, in which he treated the estate’s interest, in the partnership, as a proper subject of account. These reports continued tobe made up to January, 1879, when the administrator filed his final report, from which it appeared that all of the debts of the estate had been paid, and that certain amounts had been paid to the widow and children of the deceased. No exceptions had been taken to any of the progressive reports, and at the time of filing the final report all of the children of the deceased were, and had been for some time, of full age. The progressive reports were all duly approved by the court when made. "When the final report was made, the widow and children appeared by counsel, and filed elaborate exceptions thereto, by which it was sought to impeach the whole conduct of the administrator in the settlement of the estate. It was charged in said exceptions that the administrator had squandered and fraudulently converted the assets of the estate to his own use, and it was asked that he be required to account for several thousand dollars more than was shown to be due by his reports. A referee was appointed by the court to make an examination of the matter. It appears that a full trial and examination of the accounts were had before the referee, at which witnesses were examined. The referee made a report, by which he found the administrator should be charged with a balance of $674.73, and that he should pay the costs “of the hearing had in said matter.” Exceptions were filed to this report by the administrator, and also in behalf of the heirs. The exceptions were all overruled, and the report of the referee was approved and confirmed by the court, and the administrator was required to pay the costs. Both parties appeal. The administrator having first appealed will be designated as appellant.</p>

At the regular election held in November, 1880, the appellant Seaton, and the appellee Swem, were candidates for the office of sheriff of Linn county. The board of supervisors, at their regular meeting as a board of canvassers, canvassed the returns from the election precincts in said county, and declared the appellee, Swem, elected sheriff of Linn county. The appellant contested the election of Swem.

This is a proceeding under the statute to charge the defendant with the maintenance of an illegitimate child, of which, it is alleged, he is the father. There was an answer in denial, and an averment that the complainant had made provision for the support and maintenance of the child, by legal articles of adoption. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon, from which defendant appeals.

The plaintiff claims of the defendent William Nicklas, as constable, and his sureties upon his official bond, the defendants, W. Webber and E. Bruthaupt, the sum of one thousand dollars. The petition in substance alleges that S. Bloch, a justice of the peace, issued an execution in the case of Spies-huger Bros. v. H. O. Thomas et al., under which the defendant, Wm.

The policy was issued to one Nicholas Hower, who was at the time of its issuance the owner of the goods. Afterward Nicholas sold the goods to the plainti ff, and with the consent of the company, assigned to him the policy in suit. In the policy is a condition against other insurance.

This is' a proceeding by certiorari, directed to the defendants, who are members of the board of supervisors of Emmet county. The cause has twice before been in this court. See 53 Iowa, 510; 56 Iowa, 69. Upon the cause being remanded by procedendo, after the second appeal, the plaintiffs made application for a change of venue, which was granted, and the cause was sent to Hancock District Court.

This is an action in equity to declare fraudulent as to creditors, and set aside a conveyance of certain real estate, by Alexander and Mary Lawrence, to their sons, Hugh and William Lawrence. The court granted ■ the relief prayed. The defendants appeal. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Action in equity. In the original petition the plaintiff asked a vendor’s lien on real estate of the defendant, for certain indebtedness due by the Iowa and Missouri State Line Railroad Company. From the decree giving the plaintiff the relief asked there was an appeal, and it was reversed. See 51 Iowa, 683, for a more ^particular statement of the issues. After the cause was remanded to the Circuit Court, the plaintiff filed the following amendment to the petition: “1.

Appeal front Kossuth District Court. The defendant was indicted for the larceny of ten calves. ■ He was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for six months, and appeals to this court.

This action is brought against the board of supervisors and the treasurer of Lee county. The plaintiff is a resident and tax payer of Lee county, and as such complains of the defendant supervisors in that they compromised-a certain judgment obtained against the Commercial Bank of Keokuk for taxes, which bank he alleges was solvent, and able to pay the judgment.

The petition states the plaintiffs reside on the east half of sections one and twelve, in township seventy-nine, north of range five, in Johnson county, Iowa, and constitute twó-thirds of the electors residing thereon.

Action in chancery. The relief sought is the abatement and removal of a mill-dam, erected and maintained by defendants upon the same stream and below plaintiff’s mill, to such an extent that it will not interfere with jdaintiff’s rights connected with the water-power used at plaintiff’s mill. There was a decree directing the dam to be lowered to a specified extent, from which both parties appeal. The case has been before in this court.

Action to recover damages for the bréach of a marriage contract. The defendant pleaded a general denial, and that plaintiff, prior to the alleged promise, had sexual intercourse with other men, and was.a woman of bad, immoral and unchaste character, all of which was unknown to the defendant at the time the promise was made. Trial before a jury, verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

On tbe 10th day of December, 1878, the defendant was arraigned in the Polk county District Court, upon an indictment for obtaining money and property by false pretenses. On the next day he filed a motion to set aside the indictment, which motion was overruled. On the 12th day of the same month, he filed a demurrer to the indictment, which was overruled, and on the same day he entered a plea of not guilty.

This action was brought against the defendants as guarantors of certain promissory notes.

The plaintiff claims of the defendant $163 expended for the relief of one Inger Hanson, a pauper, alleging that the said pauper was a resident of Hancock county, and that the defendant was liable for her support. The cause was tried to the court, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff as claimed. The defendant appeals.

<p> Appeal from Cerro Gordo Circuit Court. </p> <p>Action in equity to correct a record entry and establish the lien of a judgment as paramount to the lien of a mortgage. The plaintiffs obtained two small judgments against the defendant, McGrady, before a justice of the peace of Cerro Gordo county. Afterward, they caused transcripts of the judgments to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court of the county, and caused an execution to issue which was levied upon certain growing crops. Afterwards, the plaintiffs agreed to extend the time of payment, and in consideration thereof, McGrady executed to them a chattel mortgage to secure the judgments. The officer who held the execution released the levy and made a return upon the execution in these words: “ I hereby certify and return that the within execution was satisfied by defendant giving security for said moneys; said security taken by order of plaintiffs.” The clerk then made an entry upon the record of the judgments in the following words: “ Execution returned satisfied, as per sheriff’s return thereon. Security taken by order of plaintiffs.” McGrady then borrowed money of the defendant, the Edinburgh American Land Mortgage Company; and to secure the money, executed a mortgage upon certain land in Cerro Gordo county. The mortgagee relied upon the return upon the execution, and upon the clerk’s entry, as showing that the judgments had been satisfied, and that the land mortgaged was free from the liens thereof. The judgments had not, in fact, been satisfied, and the court below so held; but it held also that by reason of the return made upon the execution, and the entry made by the clerk, the judgments appeared to be satisfied at the time the mortgage was executed, and so the mortgage had in equity become paramount to the lien of the judgments; and decree was entered accordingly. The plaintiffs appeal.</p>

<p>Appeal from Clay District Court.</p> <p>The defendant was indicted and tried for, and convicted of, the crime of compounding a felony, namely, a grand larceny. He appeals.</p>

The plaintiff alleges in his petition that he was duly subpoenaed to give evidence in a criminal prosecution before a justice of the peace, against Thomas Hindman, for assault and battery, and that, in obedience to said subpoena, he appeared, was sworn, and testified in said 'cause. That on the hearing Thomas Hindman was discharged, and the costs were taxed to Palo Alto county.

Appeal frpm Mitchell Circuit Court. Action at law upon guaranties of certain promissory notes. There was a judgment for plaintiffs upon a demurrer to defendants answer, from which they appeal. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

This is a proceeding in certiora/ri by which it is sought to correct the judgment of the defendant, a justice of the peace, in a criminal case, wherein he taxed certain costs to the State to be paid' by the plaintiff, tlie county of Palo Alto. There Was a demurrer to the petition, which was sustained, and; plaintiff appeals.

Action to recover certain corn claimed to be the property of the plaintiff. Trial to the court, judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

The defendant, J. O. Graham, was a soldier in the war of the rebellion. In March, 1880, he received from the United States the sum of $1,300, arrears of pension, for physical disability incurred while in the military service. Upon receiving the money he delivered to his wife, the defendant, Elizabeth J. Graham, the sum of $900. She deposited $700 of the money thus given to her in a bank.

Action on a promissory note payable to James J. Brown, executed by one Hite and the defendant. The latter claimed he was surety and that he was discharged, because the plaintiff failed to bring suit thereon, or permit the defendant to do so, within ten days after notice in writing to that effect had been served on Brown. Trial to the court, a finding of facts, judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Action at law. A demurrer to plaintiff’s petition was sustained and judgment thereon rendered for defendant; plaintiff appeals.

Court. These are actions for tlie recovery of certain real estate. They involve the same questions, and were tried in the court below as one case, and are presented in the same manner here with an agreement that final decree shall be entered in this court. There were decrees in the court below for the defendants and plaintiff appeals. •

Action by an administrator to recover damages resulting to the estate of the intestate, who was a brakesman in the employment of defendant, on account of injuries resulting in his death, caused by the negligence of defendant’s employes. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

65, executed by the defendants to Martin B. Sommers, or order, dated April 12th, 1870, and due three months after date. The defendants, for answer, averred that the note had been paid, and that the plaintiff is not the owner thereof. The cause was tried to the court, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.

Action to recover the value of a promissory note alleged to be the property of the plaintiff, and the possession of which has been unlawfully obtained by the defendant. Eor answer the defendant denies the allegations of the petition and avers that he is the owner of the note by purchase thereof from one Waller. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.-

The defendant was indicted in Pocahontas county for the crime of bigamy; verdict and judgment having been rendered against him, he appeals.

Aciton to quiet the title to and recover tbe possession of certain real estate situated in Guthrie county. The cause was originally brought at law, but upon the filing of an amended and substituted petition, was transferred to the chancery docket; and upon a trial on the merits a decree was rendered granting the relief prayed for by plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

The defendant was indicted for, and convicted of, the crime of nuisance. In the indictment it was charged that the defendant, on the first day of January, 1879, and on other days between that time and the finding of the indictment, erected and used in the county of Madison a building with the intent therein to sell intoxicating liquors contrary to the law, and did then and there keep and sell intoxicating liquors contrary to law.

Upon an information filed in the mayor’s court in the city of Marshalltown, defendant was fined for peddling goods within the city, without a license, as prescribed by the city ordinance. Upon an appeal to the District Court a trial was had without a jury, and judgment was rendered against defendant, from which' he appeals to this court.

Action upon an injunction bond. There was a trial without a jury, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.

The petition sets forth, in substance, that the plaintiff purchased a stock of drugs of the defendant, and executed to him a chattel mortgage thereon for a balance of $750 of the' purchase-money, which became due in installments; that being unable to pay the said installments -as they became due, the defendant, by the sheriff of the county, took possession of said goods, and that afterwards, the defendant fraudulently, and with intent to deprive plaintiff thereof, converted…

The plaintiff alleges, in substance, in his petition, that the defendant, on the 8 th day of March, 1879, negligently set fire to a large stack of straw in a stubble'field on land owned and occupied by defendant, and negligently permitted said fire to burn until the 12th day of March, when it spread through the stubble in the field where it was situated, upon land of plaintiff, and destroyed a large amount of property, for which plaintiff asks damages in the sum of $1,500.

Action to recover specific personal property taken from the possession of the plaintiff under an attachment and execution against one Thomas Dowdell.

Action to recover for alleged false and fraudulent representations made by the defendants to plaintiff, and one James W. Clark, by which they were induced to purchase of the defendant a certain .flouring-mill, situated on South Timber Creek, in Marshall county.

Tuts is a proceeding by garnishment against the C., E. I. & P. E. Co., garnishee in an action wherein plaintiffs recovered judgment against the defendant, the D. M., I. & M. E. Co. A judgment was rendered against the garnishee, the C., E. I. & P. E. Co. The garnishee and the defendant unite in the appeal.

The defendant was indicted for, tried and convicted of, the crime of nuisance, committed by using a building for the purpose of keeping and selling therein intoxicating liquors contrary to law. The defendant appeals.

Action to recover specific personal property. It is stated in the petition the cause of the detention of the property is, that the “defendant, as sheriff, took said property on an execution in favor of Lawton & Post, and against A. Eeisner.” There was a demurrer to the petition on the ground it was not alleged a notice had been served on defendant that the plaintiffs claimed to own the property.

The plaintiff filed his petition against the defendant in four counts.

On the 19th day of October, 1880, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants upon their acceptance of a draft for $683.12. The petition alleged that the defendants had disposed of their property with intent to defraud their creditors, and asked for a writ of attachment against their property. On the same day the plaintiffs filed an attachment bond in the usual form.

The petition states that defendant is a corporation and has control of the streets and sidewalks within the corporate limits; that the defendant permitted a certain sidewalk to become out of repair and negligently permitted it toso remain; that the plaintiff, while passing along the same, without negligence on her part, by reason of a defect in the sidewalk, was thrown or fell thereon, whereby she was greatly injured. There was a general denial.

<p> Appeal from Kossuth -District Court. </p> <p>Action to recover specific personal property. Judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.</p>

Action upon a bond executed to the State of Iowa by the defendant, Seth H. Craig, as warden of “the penitentiary, located at Fort Madison. The other defendants, Mourton Case, A. C. Boberts, Wm. G. Kent, Joseph Edwards, J. F. Edwards, H. Nelle, Thomas Smith, F. B. Kent, James Bullard, A. L. Courtwright and Wm. G. Albright, signed the bond as sureties. Judgment was rendered against Craig for the sum of $8,000, which judgment in still in force and unpaid.

The plaintiff as administratrixJ of the estate of John W. Beatty, deceased, brings this action to recover damages for the death of said John W. Beatty, occasioned by a train of cars operated by the receiver of the Central Railroad of Iowa. Under the direction of the court, the jury returned only a special verdict. Both parties filed a motion for judgment upon the special findings. The court overruled the plaintiff’s motion for judgment, and sustained that of the defendant.

The defendant, Frank Cousins, was jointly indicted with one Peter Hilliard for the crime of robbery. Upon motion of the defendants it was ordered that they be allowed separate trials. The defendant Cousins was thereupon placed on trial, and was convicted. He appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

<p>1. Contract: mistake: equitable relief. If a person contracts for a certain thing or parcel of property, and unknowingly accepts a different thing or property, it must he deemed a mistake, in respect to which equity will grant relief.</p> <p>2. Principal and Agent: knowledge oe mortgage. A party who relied upon another to take a mortgage and see that the title to the property was good, in that respect, made him an agent, and knowledge by the agent of a preexisting mortgage would bind the principal. /</p>

s The defendants are trustees of Sheridan township, Carroll county. As such they were called together as fence viewers on the request of the plaintiff, to assign, as between him on the one hand, and one Martin, and one Reed, on the other, for erection, their respective shares of a line fence. They refused to make the assignment. The plaintiff thereupon sued out a writ of certiorari to test the legality of their proceedings.

The plaintiff and proponent filed what purported to be the will of A. C. Bartlett, and asked the same be admitted to probate.

Tuts action was commenced- at law upon a promissory note. Upon tbe filing of an answer presenting an equitable defense the action was set down for trial as a chancery case, and was so tried by a referee. A judgment was rendered for plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest, upon the coming in of the referees’ report. Defendant appeals.

The plaintiff presented a petition to the Hon. Ed. E. Duffle, Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial District, asking for an injunction to restrain the collection of a five ¡3er cent railroad tax, which was refused. Prom the decision denying the injunction, plaintiff appeals.

The defendant Wacbenheim was the owner of a half-lot in the city of Indianola, and also a tract of real estate adjoining the city. On the 5th day of June, 1876, he conveyed the last named premises to his co-defendant Boehler, and on the 22d off January, 1877, he conveyed the half-lot to Boehler.

In December, 1880, tbe defendant Eichard McConkey recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace, against the plaintiff herein for the sum of $30, together with his costs taxed at $59. Soon thereafter, Eichard McConkey executed a receipt to the plaintiffs herein, in which he acknowledged full payment and satisfaction of the said judgment and costs.

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of John F. Pyne, bring this action in equity to redeem” from sheriff’s sale property of said Pyne. The petition prays for specific and general relief. The court dismissed the petition. The plaintiffs appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Action to recover certain taxes alleged to have been illegally collected and paid into the treasury of the defendant. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, and a judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts of the case appear m the opinion.

Action for damages for a personal injury. There was a trial by jury; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. The facts necessary to an understanding of the questions determined will be found in the opinion.

The defendants were jointly indicted for the crime of rape, committed upon one Ellen McNamee. They were jointly tried, and were severally found guilty of the crime of assault, and fined one-hundred dollars. The defendants appeal.

This is an action for an injunction to restrain the selling of certain property, levied upon under an execution, and for a decree canceling the judgment and subrogating the plaintiff to the extent of one hundred dollars, to the rights of -the mortgagees in a certain mortgage in the petition described. The court granted the relief prayed. The defendants áppeal. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

This action was commenced at law for the possession of a note-executed by Noah Hutchins, and a mortgage executed to secure the same. Afterwards an amended petition in equity was filed, asking that an account be taken of the amount received by the defendant on said note, that it be decreed that he holds the same in trust for the benefit of said minors, and that he be required to pay the money in his hands to the parties entitled thereto.

»Appeal from, Mitchell District Court. In June, 1864, tbe plaintiff recovered a judgment against H. C. Lacy and A. J. Wilder for some $800. In 1875 a general execution was issued on tbe said judgment, and tbe defendant Frank Wilder was attached asa garnishee of said execution defendants. In answer to the statutory questions put to him as a garnishee, touching his liability, his answer was in these words, “I am not able to state.” A pleading was filed controverting the answer.

Actions on promissory notes. The defendants pleaded the notes had been materially altered after their execution, and a failure of consideration. Trial to the court, judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Action to recover damages caused by a malicious prosecution, instituted by tbe defendants against tbe plantiff. A demurrer to tbe petition was sustained and tbe plaintiff appeals.

Action upon a promissory note executed to the plaintiff’s intestate, H. M. Conger, by the defendants James M. and Charles C. Bean, and James Patterson. After the defendant James M. Bean had answered, a stipulation was entered into between him and the plaintiff, whereby Bean withdrew his answer, and plaintiff was to have the right to take judgment against him for a certain amount, being less than the amount claimed, and less than the face of the note.

• The questions presented in this case arise upon exceptions to a guardian’s report in the matter of the guardianship of the minor heirs of Mary Neville, deceased. ' The guardian, Joseph Oassedy, is denominated the plaintiff, and the heirs, Margaret Oasey, Frank Neville, Eohert Neville, and Henry Neville, Jr., are denominated defendants.

The plaintiff and the defendant own adjoining stone quarries on the Iowa river. The defendant formerly owned all the land comprising both quarries, and in 1866 sold and conveyed that now owned by the plaintiff, to one Thomas. Thomas conveyed to one Mitchell, and he to the plaintiff. It appears that there is a bluff of stone some twenty-five feet high near the river, which is the face, or front of both quarries.

The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of William Carpenter, deceased, brings this action upon two warrants, drawn upon J. M. Gilbert, treasurer of the District Township of Union, by George Downing, president, in favor of G. ~W. Hunter, or order.

Appeal from Polk District Court The defendant was indicted for the crime of seduction and upon a trial was found guilty. He appeals.

<p>1. Venue: motion for change of: affidavit. Amotion for a change of venue, upon the ground of the undue influence of a party or his attorney, made by two or more, is not sufficient, unless it appears that neither of the affiants is related nearer than the fourth degree to either of the persons making the motion.</p> <p>2. Amendment: stricken from files: practice. Where the facts set up in the am endment were such as the plaintiff was entitled to prove, and which without the amendment would not be admissible, striking the amendment from the files was error.</p> <p>3. Fraud: failure to prove: verdict. In an action upon a bond, where the defendants wholly failed to prove the fraud and collusion on the part of the plaintiff, alleged as the defense, the court should have instructed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff.</p>

The plaintiff brings this action to set aside the sale 10 him of certain lands, by Samuel F. Miller, sheriff, and for the refunding to him, by the sheriff, of the purchase price of said land. The court granted the plaihtiff the relief prayed for. The defendant, Maurice Harnett, appeals. The facts are stated in the ojiinion.

Action for a personal injury which, it is alleged, the plaintiff received by being forcibly ejected from the stafionJhouse of the defendant at Eldon, by the agent in charge of the station. There was a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $4,000. Upon a motion for a new trial based upon several grounds the court required the plaintiff to remit $1,500 of the verdict, and thereupon overruled the motion. Defendant appeals.

In September, 1860, Edwin Hall recovered a judgment against J onathan Lyon and Franklin Fuller upon a promissory note executed by Lyon to Fuller and by him indorsed to Hall. An execution was issued upon the judgment in December, 1860, and was returned, April 2, 1862, “no property found,” wholly unsatisfied. Edwin Hall died in September, 1864, and, shortly thereafter, Synthia J. Hall, his widow, was appointed administratrix of' his estate.

Appeal from Polk Oweuit Qowrt. Action at law. Trial to the court, judgment for the plaintiff, and both parties appeal.

This is an action in equity in the nature of a petition for the specific performance of the sale of an equity in certain real estate by the plaintiff to the defendant. There was a judgment for the plaintiff and a decree establishing the same as a lien upon the premises sold. Defendant appeals.

Action in equity in which an injunction was obtained and dissolved on motion. From the order dissolving the injunction the plaintiff appeals.

On the 7th day of July, 1879, the plaintiff commenced this action for the possession of two lots in the city of Des Moines, alleging in his petition, in substance, that in the month of August, 1874, he was, and for many years had been, the owner,' and in possession of said property, and that, at said time, by oral agreement, he leased the same to one M. P. Turner, as tenant by the month, the time during which he was to occupy not being fixed; that Turner entered into…

At a former term the appeal was dismissed on the ground the amount in controversy was less than one hundred dollars, and there was no certificate of the trial judge that there were questions of law involved, as to which the opinion of the Supreme Court was desired.

Action of ma/ndarrms to compel tbe county auditor to issue to tbe plaintiffs a certificate of redemption for certain-real estate sold for taxes. Trial to tbe court upon tbe pleadings and agreed statement of facts, judgment for tbe plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

In 1874 the defendant Jones was elected and qualified as treasurer of the plaintiff. His term of office expired January, 1876. At an election held in 1875 one Snell was elected as the successor of Jones. Snell died before the time arrived for him to qualify. In January, 1876, Jones qualified as holding over officer, executed the bond sued on for the full term of two years and entered upon the discharge of his duties for that time.

This is an action to recover of the defendant a balance claimed to be due for publishing in a newspaper of which the plaintiff was proprietor, the semi-annual report of the county treasurer of the defendant county. There was judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

The plaintiff commenced this action upon two promissory notes, purporting to be executed by William and Isaac Wilcox to George A. Wilcox, and by him indorsed in blank. Tbe defendants answered under oath, each denying that he ever signed, or authorized any one for him to sign, or that he ever sanctioned or ratified the signing of the notes set out in the petition. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $770.85. The defendants appeal.

This is an action of mandamus against the clerk and trustees of the township of Franklin, in Polk county, to enforce payment for a Wauchope Grader and Ditcher, purchased, as is alleged, for the use of said township.

Action of mandanms to compel the council of the city, of Clinton to move or have moved certain obstructions in an alleged public highway. Trial to the court. The relief asked was refused, and the plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiffs commenced this action praying a writ of injunction restraining the township trustees of Washington township, Franklin county, from purchasing a Wauchope Excavator and Grader, and from issuing orders upon the general township fund for the payment thereof, and also restraining the clerk and his successors in office from paying the orders issued by said township trustees in payment for said grader. A temporary injunction issued in vacation as.prayed.

The plaintiff holding a mortgage upon 160 acres of land in Hancock county, executed by the defendant Reilly and one Nugent, brought this action to foreclose his mortgage and obtained a judgment and decree against both the mortgagees, and a special execution was issued, and the mortgaged land was sold to the plaintiff.

The defendant made a motion to set aside a sale of land upon a special execution issued upon a decree foreclosing a mortgage. The motion was sustained as to the undivided one-half of the land. Defendant appeals.

The plaintiff was appointed administrator of George Kelly’s estate in 1857. In 1865, lie filed a report; there was a balance due him of $150.47. Exceptions were, filed to this report, but it was confirmed by the court. In November, 1875, a second report was filed, in which it was stated no assets had come into the plaintiff’s hands since the former report, and there was no personal property belonging to the estate, and leave was ashed to sell the real estate.

The petition states the defendants, Ingraham & Marshall, recovered a judgment in the District Court, on the 28th day of March, 1876, against D. O. and Rebecca J. Acldey; that in 1879 an execution was issued on said judgment, and levied on certain real estate, which belongs to the plaintiff; that Rebecca J. Acldey at one time owned the real estate and occupied the same with her husband, D. O. Acldey, as their homestead, and the same was conveyed by the Ackleys to the…

. Action to recover land. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

This is an action to set aside a tax deed on the ground of insufficient notice of the expiration of the period for redemption. The court set aside the deed and allowed the plaintiff ninety-days in which to redeem from tax sale. The defendant Lora C. Prior appeals.

In an action by attachment brought by plaintiffs herein against A. W. Barlow, the appellee, W. P. Ferguson, was .garnished, and upon his answer was discharged. Plaintiffs appeal.

This is an action to recover of the defendant, as executor of the estate of ¥m. Wood, deceased, a sum of money incurred by the plaintiff in the support and maintenance of said Wood as an insane person at the hospital for the insane at Independence. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

The plaintiff claims that she leased of tlie defendant, for one year, from March 1, 1877, a certain tract of land containing four hundred and forty-three and acres, and in consideration of said lease conveyed to defendant her right of homestead and dower interest in said land, worth $1,500; that the defendant never delivered to plaintiff the possession of one hundred and forty-five aeres of said land, and. the plaintiff did not obtain possession, and did not have the use of…

This is an action in equity and involves the title to a farm of 315 acres, in Einggold county. By the original action the plaintiff Hensley sought to redeem the land from the defendant Whiffin. His right of redemption was denied. See 54 Iowa, 555.

Mary Y. Arndt filed a petition in said court in which it was stated “ that prior to the death of said William Edwards, she was his legal wife, having been duly married to him some time prior thereto; that at the time of the death of said Edwards she was his wife, and after his decease his widow; that said Edwards died intestate, leaving petitioner as his widow, entitled to one-half of his personal and real estate,” and appropriate relief was asked.

Appeal form Poweshiek Circuit Court. Action to recover for personal' injuries sustained by plaintiff, from a fall while passing along one of the streets of the defendant, caused by a defective sidewalk. . There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Action for an injunction. The injunction was allowed, and afterward a decree was rendered against the defendant by default. The defendant then filed an answer, and also a motion and affidavit to set aside the default. The motion was overruled, and from the order overruling the motion the defendant appeals.

Action to recover for work and labor performed by tbe plaintiff’s minor son. Defendant answered he bad been garnished as the supposed debtor of the plaintiff, and that judgment therein had been rendered against him for the full amount claimed by the plaintiff. .

<p>1. Malicious Prosecution: mistake: liability oe complainant. Where the complaint did not charge the commission of any specific offense, and the facts stated did not impute'any crime, but the justice of the peace, by mistake of judgment, and thinking a crime was charged, caused the arrest of the party, the law will not hold the person who made the complaint responsible, in an action for malicious prosecution, for the consequences of such error.</p>

The cause was tried to the court and judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

AcTIoN to establish the lien of a judgment upon certain premises. Prior to the 8th day of May, 1880, the premises were owned by one Eaust, and on that day, they were conveyed by him to the defendant. While Eaust owned the premises, the plaintiff obtained against him the judgment in question. It did not, however, -become at once a lien upon the premises, because they were occupied by Faust and family as a homestead.

An indictment was preferred against the defendant Henry Henke charging that he, being the husband of Mary Henke, did, on the 29th day of January, 1881, commit the crime of adultery with one Eina Deutimer. The indictment charges that the prosecution is commenced on the complaint of Mary Henke, the wife of the defendant. The defendant pleaded not guilty, yras tried, convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years. The defendant appeals.

The plaintiff commenced an action in the District Court of Des Moines county against one McCaw, for the collection of rent, and caused a landlord’s attachment to issue, which was levied upon the property of McCaw. The defendants herein, as sureties for McCaw, executed a delivery bond, and thereupon the attached property was released.

This is an action at law to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, an infant, from having been struck by lightning while in the school-house of defendant in attendance upon the public school. The defendant appeals from an order overruling a demurrer to the petition.

The plaintifl’s having obtained judgment against the defendant, Edward Pennell, garnished Simmons as the debtor of Pennell. A commissioner was appointed who took his answer. Afterwards, upon motion of the plaintiffs, the court rendered judgment against the garnishee. He now appeals.

This action at law was brought by plaintiff against Pierpoint & Tiittle, aDd an attachment was issued therein on the ground of non-residence of defendants, which was levied upon certain land. Service was had by publication and judgment rendered for plaintiff. After judgment Chandler intervened by petition, showing that defendants had no interest in the land attached, which had been, before the attachment, conveyed to him.

This action was originally commenced in .1873 by Frank Folsom.

Action in equity to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant Wilson to one Kennedy, and by him assigned to tbe plaintiff. The defendants, D. M. Osborne & Co., are made parties as purchasers of the land subsequent to the execution of the mortgage. They alone were served with notice. On the third day of the term they filed a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to make a more specific statement of. his cause of action.

Action upon a parol contract of insurance. There was a trial to a jury. Yerdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

This is an action in equity to establish and enforce a vendor’s lien for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of real estate. The court granted the plaintiff the relief sought. The defendants appeal. The material facts áre stated in the opinion.

The defendant was indicted for keeping and maintaining a place where intoxicating liquors were sold contrary to law. Upon a trial he was found guilty, and he appeals.

The plaintiff commenced this action by attachment to recover upon an account for merchandise sold at wholesale to the defendant who was a retail dealer at Audubon. The attachment was levied upon a párt of a stock of boots and shoes on the 13th of December, 1880. There was a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff alleges that he is the absolute owner of four hundred acres of land in section 35, township 96, range 46, and that the defendant wrongfully keeps the plaintiff out of the possession thereof. This action is brought to recover the possession of said premises, and was commenced on the 23d day of December, 1879. The defendant alleges that he is the actual owner of the premises, and that he has been in possession since June 5th, 1876.

The plaintiff claims to be the owner of certain property by virtue of a chattel mortgage executed by one Wolcott. The defendant Franklin was a judgment creditor of Wolcott and caused execution to be levied upon tbe property. Thereupon plaintiff served upon the sheriff' á written notice of his ownership of the property, and the defendants executed to the sheriff an indemnifying bond, which was returned to the court from which the execution issued.

<p>1. Meehanie’s Lien: will attach upon equitable title. A mechanic’s lien will attach upon an equitable title, and will follow the title into the hands of purchasers and assignees.</p> <p>2. -: -: upon land alone. The principle object of the law is to provide security for those doing work or furnishing materials from day to day, and the lien will exist upon the land alone, after the improvements have been destroyed or removed.</p>

Action in chancery for the partition of lands. Two of the defendants, whose claims for shares of the real estate were denied by the decree of the court, appealed therefrom. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.

The plaintiff claims of ¥m. McClure, the defendant, the sum of seven hundred dollars, alleged to be due ón a note, of $500, dated November 6th, 1876, and due on the 2d day of November, 1879, executed by D. C. Jordan to ¥m. McClure, and providing for the payment of interest annually.

The defendants are husband and wife, and this action in equity was brought to set aside a conveyance of real estate to the defendant Helena on the ground the title was vested in her to defraud the creditors of her husband. There was a reference to a referee who found and reported in favor of the plaintiff. The report was confirmed, and the relief asked in the petition granted. The defendant’s appeal

The appellant and his brother George Hartzell were jointly indicted and charged with the crime of manslaughter. There was a separate trial and the defendant was found guilty and judgment thereon having been rendered he appeals.

It appears from the abstract in this case that James Seaton died intestate, and that one McGavern was appointed administrator of his estate by the Circuit Court of Harrison county. After what was supposed to be full administration of the estate, the administrator was discharged in March, 1879.

At the March term of the Harrison Circuit Court there was presented for probate an instrument purporting to be the last will of J. W. Hollingsworth, as follows: “I hereby devise and bequeath all my property and effects of whatsoever hind or class to the following named persons, and as follows, to-wit: A house and lot situated on lot 5, in block 5, in the town of River Sioux, and all my personal effects of every class and description, including monies, notes, mortgages,…

Action to foreclose a mortgage. There was a decree granting the relief prayed for in the petition, from which defendant appeals. The facts of the case are fully set out in the petition. The case has before been in this court. See 55 Iowa, 386.

'In 1873 the defendant Wm. M. Secor and-bis wife Eebecca Secor executed to one Miles White a mortgage to secure certain promissory notes. Afterwards Miles White died. The plaintiff, Francis White, put the notes and mortgage into the hands of an attorney with directions to bring an action thereon for foreclosure, but did not inform the attorney that Miles White was dead.

The plaintiff filed in the Tama District Court, a petition stating his cause of action as follows: “Par. 1. That he is the absolute owner in fee simple of Lot No. 13, in Block 7, in Iuka (now Tama City) Tama County, Iowa, and that there is a valuable dwelling house on said lot, and other valuable improvements appurtenant to said dwelling house on said lot. “Par. 2.

The plaintiff seeks by this action to recover of the defendants for certain services performed in collecting delinquent taxes for Sioux City Township in Woodbury County. There was a demurrer to the petition which was sustained. The plaintiff refused to plead over and the petition was dismissed at his costs. He appeals.

Action at law to recover for labor and services rendered by plaintiff for defendant in prosecuting its mining operations in Mexico. There were a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. All the facts of the case necessary for a proper understanding of the points decided, are found in the opinion.

The defendants C. H. Smith & Co. were the contractors for the building of the entire line of the Leon. Mt. Ayr & S. W. E. E. McPherson and Neely were sub-contractors under C. H. Smith & Co., and had a contract for the grading of-five miles of the road. George B. Vaughn was a sub-contractor under McPherson and Neely for the grading of about one mile of the road. After completing his work under his contract there was a balance due Vaughn remaining unpaid.

The plaintiff commenced, this action to foreclose a mortgage upon certain real estate. J. C. Evans the mortgagor was made a party defendant, Washington Noyes was also made a defendant, and it was averred that plaintiff was informed and believed that said Noyes claimed to have some interest in the mortgaged property, but the claim of Noyes was junior and inferior to plaintiff’s mortgage.

Action under the ordinance of the plaintiff, under which it was sought to recover $91.57. Among other things, the defendant pleaded a counter-claim and sought to recover $100. Tried by jury, judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

An information was filed charging the defendant with obstructing a highway contrary to the provisions of chapter 17, of the laws of the Fifteenth General Assembly. Miller’s Code, Sec. 3999-J. Upon a trial in the District Court, the defendant was found guilty; judgment on the verdict, and he appeals.

The plaintiff alleges that she is the owner of certain lots in the city of Hamburg, and that the defendant Samuel Chandler, as sheriff, has levied upon them as the property of J. J. Wolf, under an execution in favor of Kate E. Buckham against J. J. Wolf. The plaintiff prays that Chandler be restrained from selling the property and that the judgment of Kate E. Buckham be decreed no lien thereon.

Action to set aside a deed. The plaintiff avers that he is the owner of the premises; and that the defendant claims under a tax deed, but that the tax deed is void because the defendant was put in possession of the premises and agreed to pay the taxes; that he violated his contract and neglected to pay them, and allowed the premises to be sold for the taxes and a tax title to accrue, and afterward purchased the premises of the person who held the tax title.

The indictment was found and presented in September, 1881, and charged that defendant and another person on the 30th day of August, 1877, did steal, take and carry away two horses, “and that said defendants have been non-residents of Iowa over two years since said taking.” A demurrer to the indictment on the ground the offense charged was barred by the statute was overruled. There was a plea of not guilty. Yer-dict, guilty, judgment, and the defendant appeals.

The plaintiff is the owner of the west half of the north west quarter of Sec. 18-79 — 44, and the defendant owns the south-west quarter of said section. The plaintiff filed a petition stating, in substance, that one of the government corners was in fact located south of the Soldier River which runs through the section, but that such Corner could not be found, because all evidence of its actual location was lost,.

The petition states one of the defendants is the widow and the others, heirs at law of W. C. Smith, deceased; that the defendant, H. E. Smith, was appointed administrator of the estate of W. O. Smith; that the plaintiff, after the death of W..

Action upon two promissory notes. The defendants answered admitting the execution of the notes, and denied any indebtedness thereon, because the said notes were given for certain “Buckeye Cultivators” sold by plaintiff to defendants under a waranty, and that, by reason of a breach of said waranty, defendants wrere damaged in a sum larger than the amount of said notes* There was a motion to make the answer more specific which motion was sustained.

Appeal from Clarke Circuit Court. Action to recover specific personal property. Trial by jury; verdict for plaintiffs; judgment, and defendant appeals.

These causes are submited together as arising substantially upon the same state of facts, and involving the same questions of law. The first is an action upon an indemnifying bond, and the second is a proceeding in garnishment. Both arise out of an attempt of Clement, Morton & Co. to collect a claim against A. G-. Waynick & Co. There was a trial without a jury and judgment was rendered for Clement, Morton & Co. in both actions. H. A. Kohn Bros, et ah, A. Gr.

The plaintiff is a married man, and about August 1868, lie with his family took up his residence in a dwelling house owned by him in the town of Adel, Dallas county, and continued to reside therein as his homestead until October 1874, when he leased his homestead and removed to the city of Des Moines. He has been since that time residing with his family at Des Moines, and at Indianola, and has not at any time returned to his former home at Adel, to reside.

Action to foreclose a mortgage executed by W. H. King. Ellen A. King was made a defendant and set up title in herself. W. H. King was served by publication, and failing to appear, a default was entered against him. Upon a trial on the merits, the petition was dismissed as to defendant, Ellen A. King. Plaintiff appeals.

This is a proceeding to compel tbe defendant Chandler, as sheriff, to advertise and sell, or in some manner apply, certain warrants of the city of Hamburg, which, it is claimed, were de? livered to him by one Alexander who was the treasurer of said city, as the property of the defendant Wolf, upon a certain proceeding in garnishment upon a judgment, in which the said Buckham was plaintiff and Wolf was defendant.

Action to recover double the value of a mare which plaintiff alleges was killed by a train upon defendant’s railroad at a point where defendant had the right to construct fences and where none were built. There was a verdict and a judgment for plaintiff for twice the value of the mare. Defendant ap-

This is an action to foreclose a mortage executed by the defendant Martha P. Eaines, to the defendant I. P. Eickabaugh, and by him transferred to the plaintiffs. The petition alleges that the defendants, Cline and Davis, claim some interest in the property which is subject to the plaintiff’s lien, and asks that the mortgage be foreclosed as to them. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s- petition as to the defendant Cline. The plaintiffs appeal.

<p>1. New Trial: jurisdiction'or court: appear. The right to apply for a new trial under the provisions of section 3155, Code, and the power of the court to entertain jurisdiction of the application, during the time limited in the statute, are absolute and unconditional; and a subsequent appeal from the judgment on the first trial will not oust the court of such jurisdiction.</p>

<p>1. Practice in tbe Supreme Court: appeal dismissed. As it does not appear that any judgment was rendered, or that any ruling was had upon the motion for a new trial, the appeal will be dismissed.</p>

Action upon an account for goods and merchandise sold and delivered to one Fountain, for which the defendant agreed to pay. There was- a verdict and a judgment for plaintiff; defendant appeals.

The defendant appeals from an order of the court, setting aside a judgment of dismissal of the plaintiff’s cause of action, •and refusing to reinstate said judgment. The facts are stated 'in the opinion.

<p> Appeal from Harrison Circuit Court. </p> <p>This is an action at law by wbicb it is sought to recover damages for the alleged breach of the covenants in a deed of general warranty for certain real estate. There was a trial by jury and verdict, and judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff appeals.</p>

Action to recover double damages for injury to a mule colt alleged to have been caused by one of tbe defendant’s trains, where tbe defendant bad a right to fence. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. Tbe defendant appeals.

Action to recover double damages for certain cattle alleged to have been killed by one of the defendant’s trains where it bad a right to fence. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for tlie plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

This is an action upon an account for house furniture sold to defendant by a partnership known as Scott & Keller. After the goods were all sold the firm assigned the account to S. S. Keller, the plaintiff, lie being a member of the partnership. The last item of goods was sold on the 30th day of August, 1873, and payments were made thereon as claimed by the plaintiff, down to June 21,1876. The action was commenced May 4, 1881.

This action was commenced in tbe District Court, where it was twice tried, resulting in verdicts for the plaintiff, which were set aside by the court. On the application of the defendant there was a change of the place of trial to the Circuit Court, where the cause was again tried to a jury; verdict for the defendant and judgment thereon. The plaintiff appeals.

Action upon an award of a sheriff’s jury for damages for right of way. There was a trial to a jury, and’verdict, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

Pottawattamie CireuAt Court. Action upon an agreement to issue to the plaintiff a warrant for $700. The facts of the case are stated largely in an opinion filed in the case upon a former appeal, 50 Iowa, 668. The city being about to construct a ditch, and needing a right of way through lands belonging to the C., R. I. & P. R. Co., employed the plaintiff to obtain the right of way at his own expense, agreeing to give him therefor a warrant for $700.

On the 20th day of October, 1878, H. Rush filed in the office of T. H. Whiting, a justice of the peace, an information charging the defendant, J. W. Rogers, with “having threatened to kill and murder Henry Rush.” On October 23, defendant, J. W. Rogers, took a change of venue from said T. H. Whiting to J. A. Greever, a justice of the peace, and on the same day a transcript from Whiting was duly filed before said Greever.

On the 5th day of January, 1872, the plaintiff executed to the defendant á bond for the conveyance of certain premises in consideration of'six thousand dollars, five hundred dollars of which was to be paid on the 5th day of January of each year, from 1878 to 1880, and one thousand dollars of which was to be paid on the 5th day of January, 1881, and 1882. On February 9th, 1876, the plaintiff commenced an action upon certain of these notes and to foreclose the title bond.

<p>1. Administrator: estates: collateral security: agency. In an action by an administrator to collect tbe proceeds of notes, placed by tbe deceased in the hands of the defendants, as collateral security for tho payment of an indebtedness due other parties, it was held that the parties for whose benefit the notes were deposited became in equity the owners of the notes; that as to them the agency of defendants did not terminate upon decedent’s death; and that they were entitled to tho notes and proceeds thereof until the indebtedness for which they were pledged was paid.</p>

<p>1. Change of Venue: affidavit: by whom made. An application for a change of venue by a party, upon the ground of the alleged prejudice of the inhabitants of the county, must, if the party is a natural person, be verified by himself.</p> <p>2. Promissory Note: foe corporate stock: tendee of certificates. An instrument, delivered to the maker at the time he executed a subscription note for the stock of a coi-poration, provided that certificates of stock should be delivered upon the payment of the note. Held:</p> <p>1. That both instruments were admissible in evidence as parts of the same contract.</p> <p>2. That as plaintiff acquired the note after maturity he took it with all the infirmities which attached thereto.</p> <p>3. That no action could be maintained upon the note without a tender of the certificates of stock.</p>

Action in equity to obtain relief against an accident, alleged to have occurred, whereby the plaintiffs failed to file a claim with the assignee of their debtor, the defendant Wheeler. The question presented arises upon demurrer to the plaintiffs’-petition.

Action to recover for wages, brought originally before a justice of the peace. There was a trial in the Circuit Court to a jury; and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff for $28.12. The defendant appeals.

The plaintiff brings this action to set aside, as in fraud of his rights, a conveyance of certain property by the defendant, Martin A. Laning, to his wife Laura A. Laning. In the petition the plaintiff prays for general relief. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s petition. The plaintiff appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

The plaintiff leased to tbe defendant certain land from March, 1880, to March, 1881, on which the defendant planted and cultivated a crop Of corn. The rent reserved was to be two-iiftbs of the corn, delivered by the defendant in cribs on .tlie premises. This action was brought by plaintiff to recover ‘the value of the rent reserved, and lie alleges that the defendant failed to deliver the same as he was bound to do by bis contract.

The plaintiff presented to the board of supervisors of defendant a “ petition for the correction, remission and revision of the levy and assessment of a certain special ditch tax, purporting to' have been made against him,” on real estate described in the petition, on the grounds the tax was illegal, wrongful, erroneous, and without authority of law.

The plaintiff in his original petition claims of the defendant five thousand dollars, for alleged carlessness in keeping five thousand dollars entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant’s care, whereby the same was lost.

The plaintiff claims of tlie defendant five hundred dollars damages for injury to the plaintiff’s property occasioned by fires, originating from alleged carelessness in operating the defendant’s railway. The cause was tried by a jury, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for one hundred and fifteen dollars. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment was entered upon the verdict. The defendant appealed May 24th, 1881. Afterwards the plaintiff appealed.

Action to recover double the value of one lieifer, one mare and one yearling' filly killed by a train upon defendant’s railroad, at a place where defendant had aright to construct fences, but failed to do so. There was a verdict and a judgment fox-plaintiff for double the value of the mare and filly. Defendant appeals.

Action upon a promissory note executed by the defendants, John Kadetska and John Ludwig, to the defendant, Wensel Calansky, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant, Ludwig, for answer, averred that he signed the note as surety for Kadetska; that it was executed and delivered upon Sunday, and transferred to the plaintiff after maturity. There was a trial without a jury, aud judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

<p>1. Criminal Law: jurisdiction of court: practice. The defendant was arrested in Wisconsin without any warrant, and before any complaint or indictment was made or filed against him in Iowa or elsewhere, and was then brought into Iowa, and there duly arrested, indicted, tried and convicted. Held, that the courts of this State, upon the trial of an indictment upon a plea of not guilty, will not inquire whether the defendant was properly or improperly brought within the jurisdiction of the court; and that a party cannot claim immunity from an offense charged on such ground.</p> <p>2. Practice in the Supreme Court: rules of court: abstract. The Supreme Court is not required under section 4538, Code, to examine the transcript in a criminal case for the purpose of determining whether the verdict -is sustained by the evidence, or as to alleged errors in the instructions, where the defendant is represented by counsel, and has made no application to have the rules of court waived, or so modified as to allow him to present an abstract in manuscript.</p>

The plaintiffs bring this action upon an alleged breach of an agreement to deliver ice upon contracts made by the plaintiffs, on account of which the plaintiffs claim damages in the sum of $6,024. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $500. The plaintiffs appeal. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

The plaintiff filed a petition alleging, in' substance, that on and prior to April 1, 1818, the defendant, A. J. Markley, was the owner of certain lands in the petition described; that on said -day the defendant, G. L. Finn, recovered a judgment against the defendant, A. J. Markley, before a justice of the peace for the sum of seventy-three and fifty-four one hundredth dollars; that execution was stayed by said Markley, with the consent of G. L. Finn, for the period of one…

The plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of certain described real estate, brought this action to recover of' the defendant damages caused by his trespassing thereon as was alleged. A writ of attachment was issued, and certain property levied on thereunder.

This is an action for malicious prosecution and for false imprisonment. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

On tbe 12th day of March, 1878, the defendant, Webster, recovered a judgment in the Winneshiek District Court against William Padden. Held: on that day intending to make answer, and the court was not in session, but had adjourned. Being advised of this fact, and not knowing but that the adjournment of the court was final for the term, the plaintiffs returned to their homes and gave the matter no further attention.

<p>1. Fraudulent Representations: evidence op: equitable belief. Evidence considered and held to show, that plaintiff was induced to mak¡e a certain purchase by false and fraudulent representations as to the value of the property; and that he was entitled to a decree for the cancellation of the notes given as part consideration for the property.</p> <p>2.-:-:-: compromise. Where negotiations were had in respect to a settlement of the matter in dispute and offers of compromise were made, hut were not accepted or acted upon, the party would not he precluded thereafter from asserting the fraud.</p>

<p>Contracts: optional transactions: when void. Where notes were indorsed as security for advancements to be made by the indorsees in certain grain transactions, and the evidence does not show that the transactions were bets upon the future price of grain, or intended as mere option deals to be closed without the delivery of the grain, the purchases and sales were not void, and the notes would be held for the advancements so made. The optional contracts that are void are such as do not contemplate the delivery of the commodity purchased.</p>

Action to recover possession of one sorrel mare and one colt, the increase of said mare, on tbe ground tbe plaintiff was tbe owner and therefore entitled to possession. Tbe defendant denied the allegations of the petition and in a supplemental answer pleaded accord and satisfaction since tbe commencement of tbe action. Trial by jury, verdict and judgment for tbe plaintiff, and tbe defendant appeals.

In August, 1869, tbe defendant, Williams, executed and delivered to one Graham, tbe assignor of tbe plaintiff, a promissory note and a mortgage upon certain real estate to secure tbe payment of tbe note. This action was brought to recover judgment on tbe note, and for a decree foreclosing the mortgage. Tbe defendants, other than Williams, are tbe holders of liens upon the real estate in controversy in tbe foreclosure.

The plaintiff claims sbe was married to Myron Ellis,' deceased, in 1862; that defendant is administratrix of his estate and falsely claims to be his widow and refuses to recogthe plaintiff as such. This proceeding was commenced in probate and the relief ashed is that the court decree and declare the plaintiff to be the widow of the said Myron.

Action to enforce, by attachment, a landlord’s lien. The cause was tried without a jury, and judgment rendered for plaintiffs. The intervenor appeals.

Action for a penalty brought December 21, 1878. The plaintiff avers that he borrowed of the defendant bank certain money; that he paid as usurious interest thereon during the two years last prior to the commencement of the action, the sum of $8,000, and he asks judgment for double that amount; The-defendant pleaded a general denial, and the statute of. limitations. It. also pleaded-to the jurisdiction of the court. There was a trial without a jury.

There was a former appeal in this case and the judgment of the Circuit Court was modified and affirmed. 54 Iowa, 758. Certain rulings Avere made by the Circuit Court after the procedendo was filed, and from such the defendants appeal.

The defendant is a physician and, as such, undertook the treatment of Emma Stulmuller. The plaintiff claims because the defendant failed to treat said Emma with ordinary skill and by reason of his negligence she died. Trial by jury, verdict for the plaintiff for $1,500, and defendant appeals.

This is an action to recover tbe value of< certain stacks of oats, alleged to have been destroyed by a fire occasioned by sparks emitted from' an engine operated by the defendant. There was a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $165.00. The defendant appeals.

• Action to recover for a personal injury alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the negligence of the defendant in obstructing a street. There was a trial to a jury and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

Action for partition of real estate. There was a reference, and upon the coming in of the report the same was confirmed. From the judgment the intervenor appeals.

<p>1. Promissory Motes: fraudulent: bona fide purchaser: partnership. Where the transferee of a fraudulent note seeks to recover thereon, he has the burden of showing that he purchased in good faith; and where a partnership seeks to recover as a bona fide purchaser of a promissory note, fraudulently procured, the burden is upon it to show that all the members of the partnershp were ignorant of the fraud at the time of the purchase.</p>

Action upon a promissory note, and for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon certain real estate which it is alleged was given to secure the payment thereof. The note is claimed to be the first one of a series of five notes secured by the same mortgage. The defendant, Owens,-is the owner as indorsee of the other notes, and makes the defense that the note in suit was not, in fact, embraced in the mortgage. There was a decree for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff filed a claim against the estate of Martha C. Roberts, and -sought to recover on an account for “merchandise as per bill rendered and attached hereto, ” and for ‘ ‘ taxes paid for deceased, as stated in the bill attached.’,’ There was-a reference to Hon. N. W. Rowell, who found against the plaintiff, and so reported to the court. The report was confirmed and plaintiff appeals.

This cause was before the court at a former term. See 55 Iowa, 487, for a fill] statement of the status of the cause when the present trial to the court was had. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs and defendants appeal.

This is a garnishment proceeding under an execution. Head, the garnishee, denied indebtedness to defendants, and upon his answer an issue was formed which was tried by the court without a jury. Judgment was rendered discharging the garnishee. Plaintiff appeals.

Appeal from Butler District Court. Action to foreclose a mortgage. Trial to the court; judgment for the defendant Abbie L. Bristol, and plaintiff appeals.

<p>Practice in the Supreme Court: case stricken from docket.</p>

<p> Appeal from Jones District Court. </p> <p>Action to recover the value of certain personal property which the plaintiff alleged in his petition the defendant had converted to his own use. The defendant denied the allegations of the petition and pleaded he held the property under a chattel mortgage, but no foreclosure was asked. He also pleaded a counter-claim. In a reply the plaintiff pleaded he had tendered the amount due on the mortgage, and afterward filed an amended replication. Trial to the court; judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.</p>

Joseph Lennon, surviving husband of Catherine Lennon, filed his petition in the Circuit Court, sitting in probate, for the admeasurement of his distributive share or dower in the real estate of his deceased wife. Certain persons as heirs at law were made defendants, and Mary Byrnes filed an answer to which a demurrer was sustained, and she appeals.